Please copy/paste your First Writing Assignment by scrolling to the Leave a Comment/Reply Section below…thank you!
61 thoughts on “First Writing Assignment”
ART 434/472
Gustave Courbet, The Stonebreakers, 1849, Oil on canvas, 5.4 x 8.4 ft (Gemäldegalerie, Dresden (destroyed))
“Good taste, which is spreading more and more throughout the world, had its
beginnings under a Greek sky…To take the ancients for models is our only way
to become great, yes, unsurpassable if we can.” (Johann J. Winckelmann, Thoughts on the Imitation of Greek Art in Painting and Sculpture, 1755)
I chose this quote because of the inevitable irony, which is not evident until later in Winckelmann’s time. Courbet is one of the artists who proof that Greek’s idea of beauty and the ideal models is not the goal every artist should aim to nor it is unsurpassable. It has always been strange to me that, for example, Renaissance masters would paint their figures as the Greeks mandated only to show us unrealistic muscular bodies. Yet, these were and are considered outstanding works, and for many, very realistic. Don’t get me wrong, I do consider classical pieces outstanding work, but I always have been in my mind that nonsense I described. Which brings me to the next question: what is a realistic painting?
There is the academic answer to that question, as well as the colloquial one. Colloquially would be what I usually hear people said when using that term, and it concludes in the painted figure or object as being similar or identical to the palpable subject. However, when I was studying Gustave Courbet, I started wondering about the real meaning of “Realism”. I got it wrong for a long time when I thought it was only a matter of depicting the subject as close to reality as possible, meaning on its form. Nonetheless, Courbet’s subject matter made me realize that Realism comes from depicting what is real, in opposition to what is ideal, as Classical and Neoclassical art professed.
Thus, the art piece I chose to analyze is Courbet’s The Stonebreakers, one of the clear examples of the artist’s resolution to break the mold and depict what he sees instead of what he thinks it should be. Not focusing on the idea of beauty but of what it is real.
The composition of the piece is pretty simple: two figures in the foreground, distributed symmetrically on it, one on the left and another on the right. In general, the space on the piece seems balanced, where the figures occupy the same space as the field, and they are placed in the middle of the horizontal line, which also makes the orientation of the composition horizontal. There is no much going on in the background, since it is just a dark field, resembling shade on the field, suggested by the diagonal glimpse of light on the structure or wheat field on the ridge. Sometimes my mind considers this dark area in the background to be a burned field. In contrast to it, the foreground is brighter and filled with distinct figures and objects. Both the field and the figures offer the same level of detail, which makes them blend. This includes the texture on the rocks, the ground, the wheatfield, the pickaxe, and more. It makes the objects easily recognizable. These aspects add to the realism of it.
Another unusual aspect is the absence of facial features: the artist opted to hide the faces of the figures. Essentially, we don’t need to see their faces. We do not need to identify them. Besides, keeping their faces hidden from the audience makes the figures even more real. Other elements in the piece tell us more about the scene, without the need for facial expressions. For example, the tattered clothes, including the patches, contribute more to the backstory of these men: the work they do is rough. After knowing that, it makes sense to assume that the body posture of the young man shows struggle to carry the basket full of stones. The old man, on the other hand, seems more pausable and calm, which denotes his experience on the field. With these mentioned details, Courbet offers more insight into the realist part of his painting, which indeed was considered direct and crude.
About the color palette used by Courbet, they are mostly warm colors, like a sort of amber filter that unites all the elements. The lines on the painting are sharp to define the stones and other objects lying around, but they are thicker on the figures. It flattens the figures on the picture plane. Another element that reinforces the flattening of the figures is the profile pose of the old man because it barely shows depth. However, the diagonal position of the young man offers dynamism and strengthens the depth of the piece, and balances the painting. Additionally, this diagonal position of the left figure suggests movement, because it suggests he is in the middle of an action, which is carrying the basket of stones. We can also get the same sensation from the diagonal position of the old man’s tool, suggesting he is about to break some stones, hence the title.
Another element that adds depth to the painting is the shade cast by the light source, which appears to be where the viewer is because it places the wheatfield between the foreground (figures) and the background (dark field). That being said, the background would represent a muddy or burned field, since the light source would not permit it to be a dark field as suggested previously.
Speaking of shades and depth, the values in this piece are strong, presenting a high contrast between the foreground and background.
It is not surprising that we find mostly organic shapes in the painting because Courbet only depicts nature and the man working on it. Geometric shapes would appear if there were any man-made structures present or something similar. The organic aspect of the whole painting adds even more realism to the piece.
Indeed, The Stonebreakers is a remarkable piece by Courbet, that it is simply what it is: a memory of something the artist saw. There is no much more into it. I could use it as an example of the peasant world as probably someone might have done, but its appeal falls in the simplicity of it and the powerful opposition it represents against the established parameters of the Art Institutions.
Returning to the chosen quote, I was thinking of the irony of a successful artist who rejected the Greek models for his art. It does not have to be beautiful, and it is not a matter of good taste or not. Art has multiple windows, each one revealing a different place. It is that diversity in Art that makes it stronger. Perhaps it would have been easier to use Winckelmann’s quote along with a Neoclassical painting, proving the point he makes. However, that would mean I agree with the superiority of Greek models in modern, and contemporary art, which is not the case. I love the contrast or opposition in matters. It only shows us that there is more than one mass of thought in the world and that is what should persevere.
Danielle Thompson
Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001 & ART 472-1001
03/16/2021
First Opinion Paper
For this opinion paper, I will be reviewing four paintings from two separate courses, ART- 472 & 474. The quote I have chosen for 472 is “The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!” (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur,1819) I will be looking at Joseph Mallord William Turner’s Burning of The Houses of Parliament, 1834 and The Slave Ship, 1840, because they both demonstrate destruction and disaster that are displayed in a manner that does not place importance on exact imagery but instead on igniting a feeling through color and fluidity that makes one hear the sounds of fire and screaming but still awe at the beauty of the painting.
For Art 474, I will be using the quote “A history painter paints man in general; a portrait painter, a particular man, and consequently a defective model.” (Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses, 1769-9) and reviewing Thomas Cole’s The Arcadian or Pastoral State, c. 1836, second in The Course of Empire series and Consummation, 1836, third in The Course of Empire series. The quote will guide my review of how Cole, during a time of portrait painters, was pulled away from the strict European landscapes and instead place a sense of woundedness in his paintings. Coles’ intentional disregard of the European constraints resulted in a history painter that did not paint the man in general but used imagination to pull history and landscapes out of his mind and onto a physical substance all could enjoy. I have chosen to review these four paintings because they both strain an importance in not displaying exactly as one sees, and instead emphasizes the spirit of their landscape.
Count O’Mahony’s quote measures up with Turner’s paintings as they are both beautiful pictures but depict hideous spectacles. The Slave Ship, at first glance, appears as a beautiful sunset or sunrise over the ocean painting. Looking closer, human forms, debris, and chains appear to be floating in the ocean. The human leg bobbing out of the ocean in the bottom right corner wears a chain around its ankle, and considering the painting’s title, it would be pretty hard for anyone to assume a happy ending from this painting. It, unfortunately, makes one realize that not only did these people die at sea as slaves, but had they made it ashore, their lives would not have been their own. Bringing forth a most somber feeling of anger from such as igniting painting. The Burning of the Houses of Lords and Commons brings forth a slightly less disturbing scene. Although uncontrolled fire can be detrimental to a city, there are no human forms depicted in this disaster. I believe Turner painted this to depict the passing of an old order, and the cyclone of smoke and fire reaching high into the sky not only takes up a large portion of the painting due to the reflection of it in the water but expresses just how hot that fire was. Although sirens did not exist yet, I can hear fire trucks and ambulances in the distance when I look at the center top. I believe this is because the rest of what one can see is a peaceful-looking harbor and city. The fire is in the middle of this bland, quite-looking harbor, giving a devastating effect. Both of Turner’s works have an almost identical color palate; only The Slave Ship has a potent red, from the sunset, and possibly blood. These contrasting color plates allowed for Turner to express real scenes of disaster through his own vision.
Cole was quoted that “the History of a Natural Scene, as well as an Epitome of Man; Showing the natural changes of Landscape and those effected by Man in his progress from Barbarism to Civilization-to the state of Luxury- to the vicious state or state of Destruction, etc.” (148) certainly explains the Course of Empire Series. However, on closer inspection of the paintings, we can see just how much detail Cole placed in these two categories of Civilization, The Arcadian or Pastoral State, 1869, and Luxury Consummation, 1836. In the Arcadian or Pastoral State, we see not only an abundance of nature but also man-made buildings and people playing, working, and walking in nature. This painting shows a co-exists of nature and humans, a growing civilization. The architecture in the background, although at first glance it looks to be a Colosseum-like building, it turns out to be a more primitive Stonehenge-like structure. The smoke fuming up towards the sky suggests a civilization or gathering of more people, a community, at the structure. There appear to be a few farming equipments such as a man with a hoe and a shepherd herding sheep in the center, a way for Cole to demonstrate the cycle of hunting and gathering individual to community farms, vineyards, and trade, which could easily be symbolized by the boat in the bottom, middle of the painting. There looks to be someone playing the flute on the right side of the painting and two girls perhaps dancing. This could signify that civilization is no longer on the frontier or in survival stages but developed enough to allow for the time for leisurely hobbies and exploration of the arts. Cole’s painting perfectly executes a calm, peaceful civilization that has grown to be a community and not individual survival. The use of color and shading gives it a glow that says there is more on the horizon, that this was not the state of luxury, but it was the beginnings of one.
Cole’s Consummation, 1836, although many have thought of it as the state unfolding in this painting Cole has used his imagination to grab a glimpse of what could have been at the height of the Roman Empire. As I know from Roman history class, Augustus Caesar and his successors never actually called themselves Emperor, but instead, Prince translated to First Citizen. However, the Prince was the most powerful, holding a multitude of positions, including the new Chief of Military, that place the soldier reliance back in Rome instead of on their generals. Caesar’s creation of pensions for soldiers and expansion of senators to flood out those opposed to him did lead to a dictatorship; this dictatorship made peace for almost 200 years, although not all 200 of those years were good. Cole captured this peace and luxury at the height and beginning of Augustus’s rule in his use of architecture. The statue of Minerva with her victory hand was a symbol of not only a city built on conquering but also what only highly organized cities have, religion and its practices. Beliefs existed everywhere, but religion was only found in places where priests and priestess could practice, be supported, documented, learned, and educate others. The harbor is filled with ships suggesting a large trade. No longer were the days of trading with nearby villages. Now there are businessmen, banks, taxes, and marketplaces. Cole’s attention to the Corinthian columns, molding, cresting, pediment, and statues compared to the prior painting speaks strides in the luxury this city has compared to the community in The Arcadian or Pastoral State. This is the Consummation of luxury of the ancient age, community living at its highest form. With not only food and time for arts but entire buildings and careers built for all forms of arts.
(This paper is for both ART 472 and ART 474)
Jacqueline Garcia
Robert Tracy
ART 472一1001/ART 474一1001
March 22, 2021
Family of Charles IV
I decided to choose Family of Charles IV (1800) by Francisco Goya as I feel there are many points of direction to dissect this piece. Goya, as an artist, provides insight from an eye who is teetering from being an old master and one of the first modern artists. Goya is also known for his portraiture as he was the Court Painter for the Spanish Crown. But, Goya’s portraiture is far more than just a pure depiction of the subject, or subjects, he is painting. Goya is clearly a gifted painter; he is able to to take what his eye sees and accurately translate that on a canvas. But aside from that, his portraiture is narrative. Upon further looking at one of Goya’s pieces, especially Family of Charles IV, one can see the story Goya is trying to convey to the audience. And I want to emphasize that this is Goya’s story. “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). Through his skillful subtleties shown in the figures’ gestures, composition, lighting, etc, Goya shows his feelings, and possibly his opinion, on the Spanish royal family. It’s as if Goya places this narrative layer over the natural depiction of the subjects. “Your color is not true; all these contrasts of light and dark make me think that you paint by moonlight, and as for your life studies, they resemble nature as a violin case resembles a violin.” (Pierre Guerin, quoted in Batissier, Biographiede Gericault, in La Revue du XIX Siecle, 1842). I like to think of it as this “casing” that is molded to fit the look and shape of what Goya is looking at. This particular painting is this molded casing made to visually resemble the Spanish royal family, but by opening the casing you begin to see the underlying story laid into the painting.
An important detail in this painting to acknowledge before looking at the rest of the painting is the fact that Goya is present in the painting. In the left side of the painting, hidden in the shadows of the piece, Goya’s face is seen in the background. He is painted actually in the process of painting the actual piece; the canvas is also seen in the corner with him as well. One can see that Goya took inspiration from pieces like Las Meninas (1656) by Diego Velázquez. In this particular painting, what makes Goya himself being in the piece so important is that it shows that this portrayal of the family is coming from Goya’s perspective. And by portrayal, I don’t just mean visual portrayal, but how he views them as people; “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). So when viewing this piece it is important to note that this painting is laced with Goya’s feelings on the Spanish royal family, not the feeling’s of the family themselves.
That being said, now I feel like I can begin my dissection of the painting. One of the things that I personally notice first is the garments that the Spanish royal family is painted in. They are covered in lavish clothing, the women are adorned in jewelry, and the men are covered in sashes and shiny medals. To me this works as a sort of layer, the “casing” I was referring to; “they resemble nature as a violin case resembles a violin.” (Pierre Guerin, quoted in Batissier, Biographiede Gericault, in La Revue du XIX Siecle, 1842). Portraying the subjects like this does two things in my opinion. One, it portrays them visually accurately. These people are obviously royalty. Their grand attire is a given. Second, it sort of works as this distraction. At first glance, the royals would look at this piece and admire this representation of themselves; it makes them look like well, royalty. Perhaps it would stroke their ego quite a bit. It gives an acceptable depiction of the Spanish royal family. By distracting the royals by giving them what they want, Goya is then able to sneak in a less admirable characterization of the Spanish royal family.
Peel away the royal and jeweled attire layer, you begin to see how Goya possibly really feels about the Spanish Crown. Portraits for the rich and wealthy, especially at the time, were meant to be idealized. Goya gave them that by having them dressed in riches. Where Goya “sneaks” in this satirical viewpoint on the family, is through facial expressions, gestures, and composition. Starting with the Queen, placed in the middle of the canvas, I think it’s fair to say that her face is not depicted in the most flattering way. It’s craned back as if she is repulsed by something or someone? Then there’s the way she is holding her children. Yes, she has an arm around her daughter and is holding the hand of her son, but through gestures there’s still this detached feeling. It’s as if she’s trying to peel away from her daughter. And there is this distance created between her and her son through her extended arm. It’s like “I will hold your hand, but stand over there.” Holding his hand because she feels that she has to, not because she wants to. Perhaps this speaks to the distance that is felt between the Spanish royal family and the Spanish commoners? Perhaps that’s also why Goya is placed almost hiding in the shadows, obscured from the light. He was the Primer Pintor de Cámara, an official Spanish Court painter, but that does not make him an equal among the royals. Compared to them, he is nothing more than just an employee to them.
Moving on to the man in charge, the King. What I find interesting is the fact that the King is not placed in the center of the piece or in a way that brings focus to him composition wise. He is slightly more in the foreground of the piece, but even so one would believe that a king would be depicted in a way that garnered more attention. Then there’s his face. Again, it isn’t depicted in the most flattering and idealized way. At the time, portraits meant for kings or leaders usually have them portrayed in a heroic manner. Here, King Charles IV’s face looks rather lost and unfocused. And his gaze doesn’t help. There’s something almost wonky in the direction of his eyes. If this were a photograph, he looks like he was caught off guard and wasn’t ready. Actually, some of the other members of the family look that way as well, like they were not ready for a photo to be taken. Gazes looking all over the place.
Overall, many of them look almost like caricatures. As if Goya purposefully decided to poke fun at the Spanish royal family. And this could say a lot about how Goya actually feels about the royal family. If he truly felt any reverence for the royals, I would assume he would have made the decision to depict them in a more put together manner; focused gazes, heroic stances, softer facial expressions, especially on the women. But, no instead we get a kind of satirical take on the Spanish royal family. In the end, Goya managed to make a portrait that would satisfy the Spanish court on a surface layer by covering them in their lavish attire. But, we also see how he and probably the rest of the Spanish civilians felt about their rulers. This painting almost feels like an inside joke that is being made among Goya and the Spanish commoners. This painting overall shows that while portraits are meant to capture the look and essence of an individual or individuals, it is overall still the work of an artist. And whether intended or not, an artist’s work is a reflection of what they feel.
Ryan Roberts
ART 474 1001/434 1002
Robert Tracy
Copley and Boy With a Squirrel
Self-portraits is an art style that has and will continue to be a great way of depicting people of who they are or represent what they love doing the most. An artist that shows an excellent example of who people through paintings is John Singleton Copley. Copley was easily one of the most aspiring and captivating artists of his time, he was somebody who paid close attention to every detail that there could possibly be and that is something I believe was a huge game-changer for the art community. Capturing anything from a person’s facial expression to their body movements was important back then because that is what defined that person in the painting. Unlike photography portraits, there isn’t that same feeling you normally get from looking at a painting because I believe that when a portrait is painted more emotion comes out from the artist, in contrast to simply snapping a photo of someone. The one-piece in mind that had caught my attention is titled, “Boy With a Squirrel”, this painting was completed in 1765 and a portrait of Henry Pelham, who happens to be Copley’s stepbrother. This portrait is an example of why Copley was so talented and his work was immaculate because of the careful use of detail he did. The quote that I found fitting for Copley and his work is said by an English nobleman named Lord Chesterfield, who stated, “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man”. I believe that this quote resonates with all of Copley’s portraits because always seemed to achieve a great fashion to show who that person in the painting was.
Within this portrait, Copley did not do this for a commission piece but in fact, he did this for an exhibition. Although this painting resembles his commission pieces in a similar fashion there are small elements that classify as a personal piece. For example, the way he has Henry is subtle, and compared to his commission the people perceive him to be more in tune with his surrounding them. One major element I noticed in this portrait of Henry is that Copley decided to go with a side view rather than his normal frontal depiction and showing a little leisure with the gesture of Henry’s body language as well. This view, in my opinion, is excellent and shows a certain level of intellect, the boy is shown in a gazing matter which portrays the whole painting in a unique presence, as it makes us wonder what could be so intriguing in the direction Henry is looking upon. The overall facial expression being made in this painting, everything from the way his head is slightly tilting to the small opening of his mouth looks like a dreamy experience he is having from what he is gazing upon. Something that I believe adds to this painting to show a level of delegate is the way his hand is placed and how it is holding the chain. He is not holding it with a clenched fist or just with his fingers, the chain simply runs throughout the hand, and with those curves and loops, it reflects a lavish feeling. From the oval on the chain all the way to the squirrel where we see it nibbling on the chain along with a few crumbles too. I believe the chain presents itself as a leading line perhaps because it definitely makes for the viewer to follow the line, and Copley did a great job with that small feature.
Another delegate detail that Copley did well on was the reflections from his clothing, the squirrel, the glass of water. Even though those are not a huge part of the painting, it still receives great attention from viewers because that gives me the impression that the table has a nice stained finish, which gives that elegant reflective look. Speaking of small yet amazing details that were done to this portrait is the squirrel. By taking a closer look at the squirrel shows off what Copley could really do when it came to small elements like that, and we can almost see every strand of fur on that squirrel resembling a feeling that makes us know that the mammal has a soft like fur. The color of it is overall perfect with its dark and light fur, dark whiskers, the large eye with a nice touch of white highlights, the snow-like belly, and bushiness of the tail. Examining those details of the painting is what I find to be most impressive about this early work of Copley’s because again, I truly believe that this painting demonstrates the amazing talent Copley had to offer during his time as an artist.
Copley is also known to be a master at painting draperies and within this painting, he presents that extremely well. Taking a look at the background of Henry, there is a rich red background that Henry is put up against, and the color of his clothing compliments everything so well. Behind the red drapery, we also can see a small glimpse of a wooden wall which contrasts with the drapery and the table quite well, even though that is a very small part of the painting. He wears a midnight blue coat that has a satin pink collar attached to it which also gives a representation of lavish clothing. Then followed by that he is wearing a yellow vest that covers most of the white shirt tucked underneath it, and the cuffs coming out from the coat have a subtle but nice contrast throughout all of the clothing. I noticed that the clothing and drapery have soft lighting and I can tell that Copley was really trying to emphasize that element in this painting because much like the reflections on the table the lighting in both grab your attention. Going back to the cuffs, the detail is incredible there because he gives us that ruffle looks along with shadows. I feel that Copley went all out on this painting and I would say that it is probably his best work.
Returning to the quote that I had chosen for this when it mentions “inside of the heart and mind man”, I see that throughout this painting of Henry Pelham one hundred percent because while observing this painting it brings your attention to what he is possibly staring at in such a dreamy way. Copley’s portraits of course always did an amazing job of capturing the true image behind whoever it was he was painting. I believe one word that I would describe this painting would be, mysterious, and I say because how Henry is positioned looking off into a distance definitely feels mysterious but in a way, people should truly take the time and examine the painting. Now talking about the first half of the quote when it mentions that, “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure”, that first statement greatly describes what kind of artist Copley was. He never focused on the basic elements when it comes to painting any sort of portrait because in all of his paintings they show emotion, the emotion that feels natural and true. When I was examining this painting of Henry I did feel like the body language that was painted felt raw and real, and not staged, which is something all portraits should seem like because that will make the viewer feel more invested in the painting.
Overall, this painting, “Boy With a Squirrel”, represents one of the most skilled paintings Copley had to bring to the table and felt like he went all-in with the talent he has. Everything from color, lighting, reflections, and small details truly shows us Copley was ahead of the game in the art community. Portraits nowadays are always great to see but mainly we see them in the form of photographs and not so many paintings, and I believe more people should get their portraits done by a painter because for me that represents a stronger connection between the artist and their model. This painting by Copley reflects such great imagery as to who Henry Pelham and that is I believe makes a more powerful and meaningful portrait is finding that connection because having a relationship with your model will have a touching story later in life.
Ziad Abou-Nasr
Professor Robert Tracy
Art 474 – 1001
23 March 2021
Analysis of the Heart and Mind of Man
Of all the quotes provided, I think the one that resonates the strongest with me is the following by Lord Chesterfield, which reads “by portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” To me, this multifaceted line carries a lot of weight and meaning to it. Before I dive into any particular pieces, there’s a few implications to this phrasing that go far beyond simple portraits; this quote by Chesterfield can be used to describe much of painting as a whole, albeit portraits, landscapes, whole scenes, and even architecture. What is being described by Chesterfield is nuance, passion, and the desire to not just capture what is being observed, but to capture the entirety of the moment as a snapshot of time, one to be revisited and experienced by hundreds of others all around the world. For the sake of my perspective, I will be focusing on two pieces: A Boy with a Flying Squirrel (Henry Pelham) by John Singleton Copley and Fanciful Landscape by Thomas Doughty.
Starting off we have A Boy with a Flying Squirrel (Henry Pelham) by John Singleton Copley, the closer of the two to a portrait as mentioned in the quote in the previous paragraph. There is a lot going on in this scene to put it bluntly. The painting is of Copley’s step-brother, Henry Pelham, which right off the bat implies that there is a bit of personalization going into this painting. Every tiny nuance and detail conveys so much about such a minute moment. The slight fiddling of Pelham’s right hand conveys plenty about his personality, with the slight delicacy of his pinky, the dainty grip of his thumb and index finger on the chain, and the flick of his wrist. We can gather he is a bit frail, almost in a regal sense. The way his shirt is frilled around the neck, however, still implies a boyish ruggedness, almost as a way to tell the audience he is still a young man who is learning his way in the world. The emphasis on texture gives us a sense of privilege, with silks and felt being primary focuses. And of course, we would be remissed should we ignore the flying squirrel. The small rodent grasps the chain that young Pelham is holding. There is a sense of bond, a link between the two, a nuance of friendship and connection just through this one chain. All the while, the rodent has a humour to it’s inclusion. Pelham’s eyes are also locked staring at something, almost trying to hold a straight face and seemingly getting tired, yet it mimics his little companion buddy. Also, In the powerpoints, there is a shot where Pelham’s eye is zoomed in on, which I feel allows us to hyperfocus on his gaze in a way we may have missed otherwise. This, to me, highlights the slight fatigue, spaciness, and near distracted emotion in his eyes. This painting is by definition a painting of an individual with various background elements, but upon closer inspection you can find a lot of soul buried deep in the smallest details, even down to the lighting chosen. It feels like Copley knows a lot about his step-brother/subject, it feels like he wants us to know him, and it overall just feels really personal.
Fanciful Landscape by Thomas Doughty is a piece I wanted to discuss because of the latter part of my point: people are not a requirement for such a level of intricacy and depth. This painting is a preservation of nature. It is a showcase of beauty. The painting, though in a fairly centralized locale, displays so many aspects of the environment in a single frame. There is what appears to be summer-time foliage as the focus, with rivers, dirt-coated river beds, mountains, snow, and even the world of the manmade. The lighting is angelic, and almost like that of a prehistoric depiction of the world, almost as if it’s aware of its timelessness. It feels tangible, yet extinct. There is movement shown in the painting, both in the currents and the clouds, but it is a generally lovely day as there are no waves in the river and the leaves look to only slightly sway. The time of day seems like it was a lucky circumstance as well, as though the painting started in the daytime and progressed to this phase as Doughty was working. A moment of peace has been immortalized, and even further so by it’s sheer lack of people. It feels nearly untouched, with the exception being the omnipresent force that is that of the manmade. Something I made note of in the previous paragraph was just how strong texture can convey emotion, and that remains true in this painting. There is a realism to it, it feels like the clouds are dreamlike and the leaves are the perfect amount of wet and crisp. The dirt and sand feel like it would flow a little, but still be hard enough to confidently walk upon. The water is refreshing and cool, but there is enough current where you could feel the rush of water upon your feet. The rocks ooze of erosion, a detail that Doughty didn’t need to include but in doing so really made this work feel immersive.
Overall, I feel the amount of emotion and intimacy captured in a work of art transcends even the subject of the piece itself. Whether or not there are people in the artwork itself becomes irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, just the amount of power behind it can be refreshing and connecting. I easily agree with Chesterfield, a strong work of art can let you peek into the “inside of the heart and mind of man.”
We should never perceive or recognize art of architecture at their face value. For it is when we classify them simply as how they are presented on their facades – or as simply paint brushed onto the canvas – that we lose sight of the depth, detail, and intention that the artist and designers put into these works. While the painting and the architectural work that is presented to the viewer may be one that is aesthetically appealing, there is more work that is done by the designers than simply putting brush to canvas and pencil to drafting paper (or in this day and age, mouse to 3D drawing application). It takes a lot of research, studying, and thinking about the subjects and projects at hand in order for these artisans to even begin to give life to their projects.
For portrait painters, some may spend weeks to months or even years studying their portrait subjects. It’s within this time spent with their subject that they learn about the things that many do not see on the outside – the things that most people who only know the subject by name have no clue of knowing. For portrait painters, this time allows them to get to know their subjects true inner colors. They find out the things that make them who they are, how they carry themselves, how they act in the public eyes and how they act behind the privacy of their closed doors. It’s with this research that they are able to paint their subjects in a light far brighter and more intense than the one that is lit on the exterior.
For architects, they go through the similar process of extensive research to learn not only about their potential project at hand but also the precedents of architectural works similar to their own, and the details about their project site and the people they believe their project will benefit. All this precursory research is important at every part of the design process as this research creates guidance for the design execution. For architectural works, while they’re also aesthetically pleasing on the inside, it’s how the spaces within the project are developed that really make the project what it is.
“By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (English nobleman Lord Chesterfield, in a letter dated 1747). When we talk about these portraits, what really makes them these great works of art is the detail that the artist puts into their work. This is how the portrait truly captures the likeness of the subject – it is partly the depiction of visual and physical likeness but also the artist’s depiction of the characteristic likeness.
When thinking about intentions and interpretations of portraits and artwork, the first work that came to mind was Thomas Cole’s: The Course of Empire series that includes five paintings depicting the history of a site and how the landscape changes due to nature and the impositions of human interactions and evolutions. Cole paints beautiful landscape portraits in all stages of the series and when one looks hard enough, they are able to see Cole’s intention in each portrait and the story that develops as one follows the sequence. The landscape at peace to the rise and fall of itself and those who live on it.
In the first portrait, The Savage State, Cole depicts the untouched landscape, one that isn’t changed due to the natural world. Following the path of the hunter – depicted on one side of the portrait – we can see the formation of a civilization. Natives surrounded by dwellings while they themselves surround a fire. Here the landscape is at power and those who dwell on it, try to survive without much alteration made to nature. The painted storm rolling in could quite possibly be Cole’s foreshadowing of the impact of civilization on the natural landscape.
The second portrait, The Pastoral State, shows that the storm is gone and we can see how the landscape has changed to make room for agriculture and farming. At the outer edges of the portrait we can see how the trees are now only stumps freshly cut down – probably used to make boats or dwellings for sustainability purposes. We see many more people inhabiting the landscape this time and even a stone building makes itself known in the distance. But here the people and the land are equals, none overpowers the other and they work here in harmony.
The third portrait, Consummation, shows what has become of the clearing that Cole had depicted in the first painting. We’ve come a long way from the fabric pitched dwellings that we once saw there as society has moved towards creating the stone columns to hold up the roofs of their temples. There are far more people inhabiting the painting – and alongside the temples in the portrait they take up much of the scene. The landscape in this scene is barely noticeable; though we see the river it is overtaken by boats and in the distance we only see a sliver of the cliff that was depicted in the first portrait as it is overtaken by buildings.
In the fourth portrait, Destruction, we see the collapse of civilization as it’s happening due to enemies overthrowing the city. The structure of civilization is crumbling, the previously depicted peaceful river becomes turbulent – destroying the ships that sailed upon them, the sky is grey due to the smoke from the fires erupting from the palaces, and the people inhabiting the once calm site are fighting to the death amongst each other. Here we see the collapse of the landscape due to the civilization that imposes itself upon it.
The final portrait, Desolation, shows the ruins of the site once depicted only centuries later. After everything the site has been through it is now in desolation – or more so the things that were built upon it. There is no trace of anyone still living there and we can see that the landscape once again is in charge of the site. Vines and reads are growing up the ruins and overall the natural becomes more visible than the built. The river is calm and the sky is beginning to clear again. Cole closes his portrait series with things beginning to turn back to what it once was in the savage state.
Alysia Moreno
Professor Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001
ART 472-1001
24 March 2021
Relationship Between Artist and Sitter
“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). John Singer Sargent remained true to portraying his perception of sitters in portraits, not theirs. Sargent’s portraits of art patron and longtime friend, Isabella Stewart Gardner, illuminates the proposal that portraits are more captivating when the artist carries an emotional connection with the sitter. This notion also coincides with the proposition that a portrait is not reflective of who is being painted, but ruminative of the artist’s feelings towards that individual. In Sargent’s oil painting of Gardner’s two years after they were acquainted and his watercolor painting two years before her death, he captured not Gardner’s perception of herself, but his perception of Gardner. It is courageous and genius of Singer to be capable in capturing actuality in the individual rather than the vanity.
Isabella Gardner was captivated by the Sargent’s work such as El Jaleo and Madame X, both works that are considered risqué and provocative. Two years after they were acquainted, Sargent painted his first portrait of her. It is said that Gardner had Sargent re-render her face eight times, making him grow frustrated towards. Her personality was stated to be hyper, direct, and demanding. Sargent was able to capture the tension in her expression, along with formidability in her posture. Her gaze is discerning, her stance is representative of her determination. The characteristic of stubbornness and unwilling to yield can be felt through her expression as well. Gardner admired a past painting of done by Sargent, Madame X, and wanted her portrait to be done in a similarly progressive portrait of herself. This request to be portrayed in Sargent’s style ultimately deemed it provocative by some, including Gardner’s husband, who asked her to not publicly display this portrait. However, just because Singer may have portrayed Gardner as sensuous, he presented her as powerful, a force to be reckoned with, and almost as a deity. He is exploiting her formidable presence, but not in a way that displays her as something she is not. In the portrait, Isabella Stewart Gardner, Gardner wears a plain black dress that goes against Venetian dark red background. The black dress and her shadow underneath start out deeply dark, but begin to dissipate upwards towards the immaculate design behind her. The glorious design is painted eloquently, forming what appears to be a nimbus behind her head. This halo/nimbus depicted on this lavish design is not only representative of Gardner’s status, but also representative of Sargent’s feelings of respect towards Gardner.
John Sargent’s last portrait of Isabella Gardner was done two years before her death, following a serious stroke she endured. She was in her eighties. Mrs. Garner in White illustrates her wrapped in a sea of white sheets, beautifully wafted over her. Her fragility and affliction is obvious, but so is her unbreakable demeanor. The color palette of this water color painting is soft, almost angelic, and illuminates Sargent understanding that this will probably be the last time he will paint her. Sargent’s ability capture the resilience and buoyancy in Garner’s expression even though she is obviously sick is proof that an artists work painted with deep emotion is painting reflecting their inner selds. Sargent captured the true essence of Garner’s manner because of their ongoing friendship that has lasted decades. Sargent’s father also suffered and died from a stroke, making him even more sensitive to Garner’s state. The mood of this painting is still and subdued. It is almost like watching speckles of dust pass through a gleaming beam of sunlight through a window seal. A blissful, tranquil moment in time that will soon be gone forever, but it exists right now, and in knowing this, there is a sense of calm. Garner had this to say about her portrait, “a water-colour, not meant, I hope, to look like me”.
The two portraits done of Isabella Gardner, the first done in oil two years after she was introduced to John Sargent, and the second done in watercolor two years before her death, purely represents the notion that every portrait is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not the sitter. On a technical level, Sargent’s first portrait of Gardner holds the same emotion and resemblance of portraits painted of monarchs, rulers, and individuals in command. While the commanding expression in her face is noticeable, it illustrates to the viewer that there is a sense of either intimidation, frustration, or sense of hierarchy. Her posture is almost lunging toward you at eye level giving off a sense subduing. The level of detail of the dark red backdrop gives a feeling of royalty, wealth, or power. Dark reds and blacks against her light pale skin make her appear menacing. This portrait of her is representative of how Sargent felt about Gardner at the time. A fact to remember is the Gardner did make Sargent re-render her face eight times along with her inability to stay still, so he was growing extremely tired of her and possibly could have given up if she was not of such high status and high paying patron.
Yet the friendship between Gardner and Sargent lasted up until Gardner’s death. Now Sargent is able to reflect himself and his admiration for Gardner into a portrait that not reflects her vision for herself, but his vision of her. Compared to perspective of his first portrait of her, a strict, sensuous, commanding force to be reckoned with, he depicts her as a soft, calm, and wise. Her presence is still there, but the intimidation is gone and it is not just because she is about to die, but it is because he loves her. Being able to illustrate her demeanor as a strong woman when she’s wrapped in sheets, sick and dying, was not a representation of she was in that moment but how Sargent felt about her in the moment. This ability to positively illuminate a person as strong when they are weak demonstrates how and artist painting a portrait through feeling is actually a portrait of themselves. This could also be a reflection of how Sargent felt from losing his father to a stroke, strong but weak at the same time.
There is a reason it is hard for a lot of viewers to connect to old portraits done of rulers, monarchs, and people in power. They all wanted to be represented as pristine and powerful. That is hard to relate to. While she was not a ruler, Gardner grew up being of high economic status and wanted to be presented as much. Sargent did the best he could with her demands and still painted her in his style. The allowing for an ocean of emotions to pour out of this piece compared to the first. I do not believe that Sargent would have been able to capture of strong sense of emotion and tranquility if he never had a long lasting and evolving relationship with Gardner. The two painting together can be considered an evolution of self, reflection, and friendship through the eyes of the artist.
In the beginning of their friendship, Gardner was under the impression her portrait would depict how she saw herself, not how Sargent saw her. While their friendship progressed, she was able to understand portraits with feeling are reflection of the artist, not the sitter. That allowed there to be an artistic of evolution of conveying such strong emotion in the second painting compared to the first. Portraits are more captivating and elude more emotion when the artist is able to paint with feeling, and feelings towards an individual only grow stronger when there is a relationship made. Due to the strong and everlasting between John Sargent and Isabella Gardner, his portrayal of her right before her death is soft, mysterious, and utterly captivating, compared to his first portrayal of her which has her come off as intimidating, commanding, and direct. The relationship between the artist and the sitter is crucial, and when there is one made, works like Mrs. Gardner are made.
Grant Stanfield
Robert Tracy
Art 474-1001
March 23, 2021
Opinion Paper
Throughout history, there have been many significant and iconic artists. Many of these artists’ quotes are being referenced and talked about to this day. I have decided to look at this quote, “In order for a portrait to be a work of art, it must not resemble the sitter.” (Umberto Boccioni, Technical Manifesto of Futurist Painting, 1910). I have also decided to look at the portrait, Madame X by John Singer Sargent. This piece really stood out to me, it looked different from the other portrait paintings I have seen. The white skin on the subjects really draws in the viewer’s eye because everything else in the painting are darker shades. I was surprised to see that this piece was met with such ridicule, I feel like when artists try to do something new or different it is always faced with some form of pushback or negative criticisms. I think this piece works well with the quote I chose because while it is a portrait of a lady, I can see the stylistic approach that the artist incorporated. Most people aren’t that pale, but the subject has a really good contrast against the dark background and her black dress. She is posed elegantly while the overall painting looks pretty mysterious.
While the work does resemble the sitter, many people won’t know who the subject is unless they do research. We find out that since the painting was faced with so much ridicule and negative reception, the subject was humiliated and the artist changed the painting’s name and moved away despite both of them thinking the piece was a masterpiece. When learning about what they faced, the quote becomes a little bit more clear and also a bit darker, if Sargent made the subject look a bit different from the model, he perhaps could have saved her from the scrutiny and embarrassment that she faced from the public. By having the subject look differently and keeping the ‘madame x’ name, the piece would have been more mysterious, but it still may have been criticized by the public. But those are all what-if scenarios and there is no real way to tell or see how things could have played out differently. It is hard to know exactly why the people at that time reacted so negatively towards this piece. If a piece like this was made in modern times featuring a well-known person as the model, I doubt that people would react the same way that they did. This is probably due to most people being more accepting of different forms of art, artistic expression, and how people present themselves. Overall, I really like this piece, It is sad to see how people at the time reacted to it and how it affected the model and artist’s lives. But, as the quote says, maybe the piece would have been more accepted if it did not look like the model- a model that people in their area knew.
Looking at Boccioni’s quote again, I am not sure I fully agree with it. Art is subjective, there is no ‘true’ work of after. I think Art is simply a medium that lets people express themselves however they see fit. Its quotes like these that turns art into some sort of an ‘exclusive club’, it hurts artists and viewers by making them think there is a certain way they have to create or think about art. With that said, I can also see why Boccioni made that comment. In Sargent’s case, making the subject look a bit different from the model could have at least saved the model from embarrassment, but I also think the experience they faced because of it also makes the piece more interesting. I think that is true for any painting with a wild story. But that makes me think if people should judge works of art for what they are or should they be judged for its story. I don’t have an answer to that question, I just think any works of art should be appreciated at the very least. It is sad to see how the public reacted to Sarget’s Madame X- especially since both he and the model really liked how it came out. It makes me think if artists should only focus on work that makes them happy instead of random viewers or should they only create works that are safe. I think that artists should focus on what makes them happy and if other people happen to like what they make then so be it. Art is subjective after all, anything can be considered works of art if that is the artists’ intention. Saying that works of art have to do or be something in order to be considered true works of art is pretty much the opposite of what art itself is, which is freedom of expression.
Samantha Mangino
Professor Robert Tracy
ART 474 Section 1001
25 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
Portraiture has been around for centuries and the main focus of a portrait is depicting the human subject. The purpose of a portrait is to capture the essence of the person and tell a story about who they are. A painting of someone is more than just a picture of them, as Lord Chesterfield said “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (English nobleman Lord Chesterfield, in a letter dated 1747). A successful portrait is one in that which every detail of the painting is carefully made by the artist to accurately portray their subject. The pose of the person, facial expression, and even the accessories in a painting, all tell you something about that person. One of the pieces of art in the lectures that embodies the quote above is Thomas Smith’s self-portrait.
The self-portrait of Thomas Smith is unique because it is the only New England portrait from the seventeenth-century by an identified artist. This painting is also the earliest extant American self-portrait. The painting was made around 1680 and the medium is oil on canvas. There aren’t very many facts recorded about Thomas Smith himself due to the fact there were several other men living in Boston in the late seventeenth-century with the same name. The only thing we know about him is that he was a painter who lived in Boston in the seventeenth century. However, art historians have made some educated guesses about his life. They believe that Smith was a Puritan and a mariner, perhaps even a naval officer. The only reason we even know these details about his life is thanks to the details he included in his self-portrait.
In Thomas Smith’s self-portrait, he is positioned in the middle of the canvas with half of his body in the frame, sitting in a red chair, facing three-quarters left with his gaze meeting the viewers. Thomas Smith took up painting late in life, so in his portrait, he is depicted as an older gentleman with shoulder-length gray hair parted down the middle with wrinkled pink skin. He is wearing a black coat with a fancy ruffled lace neckcloth with an intricate design. The pattern on the lace appears to be a mix of crossed lines as well as vines and stylized flowers. Another reason this portrait is significant is that it represents the stylistic shift in American art from the Elizabethan style to the baroque style. The modeling of his head, the wrinkles on his face, as well as the ruffles in the cloth are all examples of how this painting fits into the baroque style of painting. Smith used an abundance of intense light and shadows in his painting to make the figure appear three-dimensional in the space. Even though his self-portrait is a quite realistic representation of himself, it’s actually the details around Thomas Smith that is the most telling about his life.
The window behind him shows an event from his life which helps the viewers infer that he had a naval career. Through the window, it shows a naval battle scene and a fortress. There are three ships, one of them sinking in the water, and the other two with Dutch and British flags. His right hand rests on top of a skull that is missing its jaw. The dark gray skull contrasts greatly with his pink fleshy skin. The skull is a symbol of mortality and it’s related to vanitas. The image of skulls was also very common in gravestone carving during this time. The artist recognizes the certainty of death or his anticipation that he is going to die soon. The choice to exclude the skull’s jaw could reflect that decay is inevitable. This idea contrasts with the symbols of wealth in his portrait. One can conclude that Smith was a wealthy man due to his position of being a captain, the fancy clothes and setting, as well as the use of expensive material, ultramarine pigments, which he used for his eyes, and the flags in the distance. Underneath the skull lies a paper folding over the table with a poem written on it. Smith used the trompe l’oeil technique to try to make the paper appear three-dimensional. The intense light and shadows on the paper make it appear like it is actually bent over the table. The poem was signed with a monogram signature, T.S., which helped identify this painting as a self-portrait. The poem showed Smith’s Puritan beliefs about death and how it is a release from life’s tribulations. The skull symbolizes death and the window behind him shows the trials of life. The first half of the poem “Why why should I the World be minding/therein a World of Evils Finding. /Then Farwell World: Farwell thy Jarres/thy Joies thy Toies thy wiles thy Warrs” alludes to the naval battle scene and represents the political and religious rivals to the Protestant faith. While the second half of the poem “Truth Sounds Retreat; I am not Sorye. /The Eternall Drawes to him my heart/By Faith (which can thy Force Subvert)/To Crowne me (after Grace) with Glory.” represents Smith’s Puritans belief’s about not fearing death.
All the details included in Thomas Smith’s self-portrait help the viewer read into his life. This shows that this is more than just a painting or a picture of this man. It’s a story of his life and it shows “the inside of the heart and mind of the man”. This painting allows the viewer to see his mind because he included his Puritan beliefs about life and death, especially in the poem underneath the skull. The window scene also allows you to view a big part of his life as a naval officer. Overall, this self-portrait gives the viewer a good idea of who this man was and what his beliefs were. This is why portraits are important because they play a part in recording history as they serve as not only a visual representation of people but also a document of their personality and who they really were.
Kevin Kim
Professor Robert Tracy
ART 434 1002
ART 474 1001
“Stop inviting walls into wide open spaces!” (Buddy Wakefield)
Wakefield’s quote addresses a conundrum that everyone can relate to; the unnecessary need to add constraints or limitations to something. This resonates with me as I tend to either overcomplicate and limit myself greatly in whatever I do, especially in art, or blindly follow standards without ever thinking why I’m doing this or if it’s even necessary. Instead of thinking about what I can do, my mind immediately shifts towards what I think I can’t do. Not to say this is necessarily a bad thing as creative innovation can be achieved through limitations, but it can be problematic and stifle progress. An important part of the quote that jumped out to me is the word “inviting” because of its implication that people tend to openly bring about these limitations themselves. Even if there are already obstacles in the way of something, people tend to add more themselves either consciously or unconsciously. However, individuals are all different in the way we think, and once we begin to break down these self-made walls, we can truly see how creative freedom can lead to truly diverse and innovative art. Two artworks that break down the walls surrounding them I wanted to talk about are the Ca’n Terra by Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa, and The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset.
Ca’n Terra by Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa was one of the first works of art that came to mind after reading Wakefield’s quote. Ca’n Terra, meaning “House of the Earth”, is located in Menorca Island, Spain and is a old stone quarry that was renovated to be a home. Most people wouldn’t think of the potential of a stone quarry being a home at first glance and, even after renovation, it is definitely a place that most people wouldn’t really think of as a home. I’m sure if one were to ask people what a home is, their responses would be based on the general idea of a home, both in terms of physical and psychological aspects that have influenced through years of molding. However, if you were to ask what a home means to them, suddenly the meaning becomes more fluid. They might say somewhere where they feel safe, relaxed, and free to express themselves. Suddenly, Ca’n Terra doesn’t seem like such an outlandish idea to people anymore.
To understand how and why Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa came up with the Ca’n Terra for their home, we can take a look at their goals and work process. One of the manifestos by Ensamble Studios, the organization that Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa are a part of, that stood out to me was, “Our work has no pigeonholes, no barriers. We design the shadow to obtain spaces of light and we can build with heavy elements to obtain weightless and transparent spaces. We go from stressed structures to dense structures, from the small scale of the house to the bigger scale of the city, from reordered nature to prefabricated systems” (Manifesto). Ensamble Studios’ manifesto gives insight into how something like Ca’n Terra, with how it has been renovated into a home that fits with Anton and Debora’s vision of home, can be made. Thinking from a historical standpoint, the concept of home would’ve been considered a cave to our ancient ancestors, changing as humans developed over time, ultimately making the idea of an old stone quarry being one not too far fetched. Ca’n Terra invokes the meaning of Wakefield’s quote through its thinking outside the box, leading to an impressive architectural structure that holds all the weight of the term “home”. Anton and Debora’s architectural innovation breaks down the standard of a normal home while giving no reason to not consider Ca’n Terra one.
The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset, located at the Moynihan Train Hall, is another example of how people can go against inviting walls into wide open spaces. The vision of The Hive was of a global metropolis, with the purpose of attracting the attention of the busy commuters traveling across the Moynihan Train Hall. The result was an inverted, surreal metropolitan cityscape hanging from the ceiling of the Moynihan Train Hall. The buildings that make up The Hive are influenced from metropolitan buildings around the world such as New York, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, and London.
Taking a look at the finalized result of Elmgreen and Dragset’s The Hive, it begs the question of how and why the two came up with its innovative design and unique placement? Elmgreen and Dragset believe their works can influence change, not only in terms of art but also in terms of politics, society, and preconceived perceptions. In an ArtSpeak interview by Linda Yablonsky on June 29, 2020, Michael Elmgreen states that he believes, “research is a process of forgetting the conclusions you’ve come to and testing the theses behind them. It’s forever doubting and questioning, and never coming up with a final result” (Yablonsky). In another quote in the same interview regarding the duo’s working process, Elmgreen states, “scientists need to doubt their results all the time in order to get farther. We would still be working with stone axes if not for that curiosity” (Yablonsky). By taking a look into the thought process of Elmgreen and Dragset, we can begin to understand how the duo came up with a uniquely innovative design that breaks from usual artistic standards in favor of creative innovation. The Hive could’ve simply been an art piece that was placed in an art gallery or simply grounded into an area that is much easier to notice, but it wouldn’t carry the same impact to it compared to where it was designed to be. In regards to the notion of being placed in an art gallery, Elmgreen states, “It feels so unreal that we go through the same motion of installing a show over and over again without discussing why we do this and what has happened before. It’s like trying to make a ritual celebration out of something that’s very artificial” (Yablonsky). It is no question that every choice design and placement was deliberate. To finish off, a final quote from Yablonsky’s interview, Elmgreen states, “But through our experiments, and those of many different artists, you can keep alive possibility of change. It’s so important to show that you can break the rules, even on a small scale, especially in societies that have become more and more regulated. If you don’t keep the flame alight, what is there, in the end?” (Yablonsky). It is clear that the artistic duo would agree with Wakefield in the importance of breaking down walls in wide open spaces rather than inviting them with much to show for it.
Our greatest enemies in creativity and innovation often are ourselves. Keeping things in boundaries through limitations and constraints may appear to help us by narrowing our focus, but it can be a double edged sword. Like Anton and Debora’s Ca’n Terra and The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Dragset, it is important to always be pushing our imagination and reevaluating our pre-existing beliefs of what is seen as normal to us. If Anton and Debora had only thought about the concept of a home in the usual standard, a beautiful architectural piece such as Ca’n Terra that challenges a normalized and everyday concept would never have been made. The same goes for The Hive; if Elmgreen and Dragset didn’t look to make change and didn’t believe in a necessity to make change, to think outside the box, the unique inverted global metropolis would never have been made to attract the awe of the Moynihan Train Hall’s increasingly busy commuters everyday. Rather than inviting walls into our imagination, it is imperative that we should be working towards breaking down any existing walls in order to broaden our creative freedom.
Kevin Kim
Professor Robert Tracy
ART 434 1002
ART 474 1001
“Stop inviting walls into wide open spaces!” (Buddy Wakefield)
Wakefield’s quote addresses a conundrum that everyone can relate to; the unnecessary need to add constraints or limitations to something. This resonates with me as I tend to either overcomplicate and limit myself greatly in whatever I do, especially in art, or blindly follow standards without ever thinking why I’m doing this or if it’s even necessary. Instead of thinking about what I can do, my mind immediately shifts towards what I think I can’t do. Not to say this is necessarily a bad thing as creative innovation can be achieved through limitations, but it can be problematic and stifle progress. An important part of the quote that jumped out to me is the word “inviting” because of its implication that people tend to openly bring about these limitations themselves. Even if there are already obstacles in the way of something, people tend to add more themselves either consciously or unconsciously. However, individuals are all different in the way we think, and once we begin to break down these self-made walls, we can truly see how creative freedom can lead to truly diverse and innovative art. Two artworks that break down the walls surrounding them I wanted to talk about are the Ca’n Terra by Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa, and The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset.
Ca’n Terra by Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa was one of the first works of art that came to mind after reading Wakefield’s quote. Ca’n Terra, meaning “House of the Earth”, is located in Menorca Island, Spain and is a old stone quarry that was renovated to be a home. Most people wouldn’t think of the potential of a stone quarry being a home at first glance and, even after renovation, it is definitely a place that most people wouldn’t really think of as a home. I’m sure if one were to ask people what a home is, their responses would be based on the general idea of a home, both in terms of physical and psychological aspects that have influenced through years of molding. However, if you were to ask what a home means to them, suddenly the meaning becomes more fluid. They might say somewhere where they feel safe, relaxed, and free to express themselves. Suddenly, Ca’n Terra doesn’t seem like such an outlandish idea to people anymore.
To understand how and why Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa came up with the Ca’n Terra for their home, we can take a look at their goals and work process. One of the manifestos by Ensamble Studios, the organization that Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa are a part of, that stood out to me was, “Our work has no pigeonholes, no barriers. We design the shadow to obtain spaces of light and we can build with heavy elements to obtain weightless and transparent spaces. We go from stressed structures to dense structures, from the small scale of the house to the bigger scale of the city, from reordered nature to prefabricated systems” (Manifesto). Ensamble Studios’ manifesto gives insight into how something like Ca’n Terra, with how it has been renovated into a home that fits with Anton and Debora’s vision of home, can be made. Thinking from a historical standpoint, the concept of home would’ve been considered a cave to our ancient ancestors, changing as humans developed over time, ultimately making the idea of an old stone quarry being one not too far fetched. Ca’n Terra invokes the meaning of Wakefield’s quote through its thinking outside the box, leading to an impressive architectural structure that holds all the weight of the term “home”. Anton and Debora’s architectural innovation breaks down the standard of a normal home while giving no reason to not consider Ca’n Terra one.
The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset, located at the Moynihan Train Hall, is another example of how people can go against inviting walls into wide open spaces. The vision of The Hive was of a global metropolis, with the purpose of attracting the attention of the busy commuters traveling across the Moynihan Train Hall. The result was an inverted, surreal metropolitan cityscape hanging from the ceiling of the Moynihan Train Hall. The buildings that make up The Hive are influenced from metropolitan buildings around the world such as New York, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, and London.
Taking a look at the finalized result of Elmgreen and Dragset’s The Hive, it begs the question of how and why the two came up with its innovative design and unique placement? Elmgreen and Dragset believe their works can influence change, not only in terms of art but also in terms of politics, society, and preconceived perceptions. In an ArtSpeak interview by Linda Yablonsky on June 29, 2020, Michael Elmgreen states that he believes, “research is a process of forgetting the conclusions you’ve come to and testing the theses behind them. It’s forever doubting and questioning, and never coming up with a final result” (Yablonsky). In another quote in the same interview regarding the duo’s working process, Elmgreen states, “scientists need to doubt their results all the time in order to get farther. We would still be working with stone axes if not for that curiosity” (Yablonsky). By taking a look into the thought process of Elmgreen and Dragset, we can begin to understand how the duo came up with a uniquely innovative design that breaks from usual artistic standards in favor of creative innovation. The Hive could’ve simply been an art piece that was placed in an art gallery or simply grounded into an area that is much easier to notice, but it wouldn’t carry the same impact to it compared to where it was designed to be. In regards to the notion of being placed in an art gallery, Elmgreen states, “It feels so unreal that we go through the same motion of installing a show over and over again without discussing why we do this and what has happened before. It’s like trying to make a ritual celebration out of something that’s very artificial” (Yablonsky). It is no question that every choice design and placement was deliberate. To finish off, a final quote from Yablonsky’s interview, Elmgreen states, “But through our experiments, and those of many different artists, you can keep alive possibility of change. It’s so important to show that you can break the rules, even on a small scale, especially in societies that have become more and more regulated. If you don’t keep the flame alight, what is there, in the end?” (Yablonsky). It is clear that the artistic duo would agree with Wakefield in the importance of breaking down walls in wide open spaces rather than inviting them with much to show for it.
Our greatest enemies in creativity and innovation often are ourselves. Keeping things in boundaries through limitations and constraints may appear to help us by narrowing our focus, but it can be a double edged sword. Like Anton and Debora’s Ca’n Terra and The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Dragset, it is important to always be pushing our imagination and reevaluating our pre-existing beliefs of what is seen as normal to us. If Anton and Debora had only thought about the concept of a home in the usual standard, a beautiful architectural piece such as Ca’n Terra that challenges a normalized and everyday concept would never have been made. The same goes for The Hive; if Elmgreen and Dragset didn’t look to make change and didn’t believe in a necessity to make change, to think outside the box, the unique inverted global metropolis would never have been made to attract the awe of the Moynihan Train Hall’s increasingly busy commuters everyday. Rather than inviting walls into our imagination, it is imperative that we should be working towards breaking down any existing walls in order to broaden our creative freedom.
Ilyana Raymond
Robert Tracy
Art 474.1001
24 March 2021
The Portrayal of Mary Cassatt
“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.”
–Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
In both Degas’s and Cassatt’s portraits, there is a similar technical usage of paint. The strokes are somewhat loose and unrefined, save the areas where one pays most attention: the face. Both artists render a strong gaze, pink lips, and a few hairs emerging from Cassatt’s bonnet. However, this quote from Wilde can be well applied to these paintings. While these paintings may be technically similar, the sense of who Cassatt is as a person is very different in these paintings’ conveyances.
In Degas’s portrait of Mary Cassatt, Cassatt sits in a plain wooden chair in a beige, undefined space. The space behind Cassatt’s head is painted flatly with a lighter shade of brown than the rest of the work, so as to differentiate her head from the brown background. She wears a black dress with white collared wrists, as well as a light brown hat with a dull red bow on top. Similarly, she has a large dull red bow tied around her neck, which hangs down onto her chest. Her body is equally undefined, only the silhouette of her body and the whites of her wrist collars informing the viewer of her position: hunched over herself, resting her elbows upon her knees. In her hands she holds three small cards; they may be photographs. Her hands are of a browner hue than her face, which is pinker and more fully realized in detail.
She looks directly at the viewer, her face seemingly directed upwards from where she had just been looking down at the photographs. Her blue eyes are focused, almost piercing. Her eyebrows are raised sociably, and she has a small smile forming. In this piece by Degas, should the viewer know nothing else about Cassatt, they may get a sense that she is an open person, looking to reminisce or chit chat. This may have been how Degas viewed Cassatt. As such, this portrait is not necessarily one in which Degas is creating a “portrait of the artist,” but is certainly one in which he is inserting his own interpretation of who Cassatt is as a person. In this way, the piece is not a “portrait of the sitter,” but a portrait of the person Degas believes to be Cassatt.
In the following portrait, Cassatt’s self portrait, the mood of the painting could not be more different. In this piece, Cassat sits on a small sofa or loveseat of green and red stripes, in an undefined space, perhaps with a simple blank tan wall behind her. She is in a semi-reclined position, as she leans one arm onto the sofa, and her hands are resting loosely together in her lap. She wears an all white dress, quite the contrast to Degas’ piece, as well as white gloves and a red bonnet. Atop the bonnet are red and green brush strokes, likely indicating flowers. The bonnet’s ribbons come down under Cassatt’s chin and are tied into a striking red bow, flowing over her white dress.
In Cassatt’s self portrait, however, she does not meet the gaze of the viewer. In this work, Cassatt turns her face moodily to the right, either looking at something out of frame, unknown to the viewer, or simply averting her gaze entirely. Her mouth does not form a smile; it rests in a neutral frowning position. Her eyebrows rest equally neutrally. This piece seems to be one which takes on a more introspective quality, as compared to Degas’ work, wherein Cassatt seems quite inviting. In her self portrait, Cassatt presents herself in a light which peers of hers may not usually have seen: thoughtful, quiet, introspective. As she holds her hands together and stares out into middle distance, she assumes the familiar disposition of someone deep in contemplation.
Adding to this contemplative atmosphere, despite the white dress and beige background, is the usage of lighting within the work. In Degas’s work, the lighting is little to none; the work consists of the colors to indicate the shapes of Cassatt’s form, with minimal shading in her face to vaguely suggest a light source to the left. Comparatively, Cassatt’s self portrait has a stronger lighting: the underside of her bonnet is darker than the top, and the left side of her face is considerably lighter than the right, unlike in Degas’s work.
The culmination of Cassatt’s self portrait imparts onto the viewer a greatly different sense of who she is as compared to Degas’s interpretation. In this work, she is both the sitter and the artist, and yet one cannot help but feel that she captures the essence of Wilde’s statement of this being a “portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” In her self portrait, Cassatt conveys her own sense of self, rather than how she perceives another person. And yet, she also manages to capture multiple facets of her own self: not just the moodiness of her disposition, but the refinement of her white clothes as well to show that she is a respectable woman, even if she is not always available to offer up a smile to whoever comes looking for one from her.
From my own point of view, I prefer Cassatt’s painting to Degas’s, especially knowing that it is her self portrait. While I state that Degas’s portrait of Cassatt is one which displays his interpretation of who she is, this is not to say he was necessarily wrong. However, being able to share one’s less positive feelings is something of value which I believe should not be overlooked. As covered in the lessons on Cassatt, she was fairly limited in the range of what was considered ‘acceptable’ for her work. Given this, it makes me happy to see that she was able to express some of the less wholesome or pleasant sides of herself within her work, even if only in something as simple as her self portrait.
Kevin Kim
Professor Robert Tracy
ART 434 1002
ART 474 1001
“Stop inviting walls into wide open spaces!” (Buddy Wakefield)
Wakefield’s quote addresses a conundrum that everyone can relate to; the unnecessary need to add constraints or limitations to something. This resonates with me as I tend to either overcomplicate and limit myself greatly in whatever I do, especially in art, or blindly follow standards without ever thinking why I’m doing this or if it’s even necessary. Instead of thinking about what I can do, my mind immediately shifts towards what I think I can’t do. Not to say this is necessarily a bad thing as creative innovation can be achieved through limitations, but it can be problematic and stifle progress. An important part of the quote that jumped out to me is the word “inviting” because of its implication that people tend to openly bring about these limitations themselves. Even if there are already obstacles in the way of something, people tend to add more themselves either consciously or unconsciously. However, individuals are all different in the way we think, and once we begin to break down these self-made walls, we can truly see how creative freedom can lead to truly diverse and innovative art. Two artworks that break down the walls surrounding them I wanted to talk about are the Ca’n Terra by Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa, and The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset.
Ca’n Terra by Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa was one of the first works of art that came to mind after reading Wakefield’s quote. Ca’n Terra, meaning “House of the Earth”, is located in Menorca Island, Spain and is a old stone quarry that was renovated to be a home. Most people wouldn’t think of the potential of a stone quarry being a home at first glance and, even after renovation, it is definitely a place that most people wouldn’t really think of as a home. I’m sure if one were to ask people what a home is, their responses would be based on the general idea of a home, both in terms of physical and psychological aspects that have influenced through years of molding. However, if you were to ask what a home means to them, suddenly the meaning becomes more fluid. They might say somewhere where they feel safe, relaxed, and free to express themselves. Suddenly, Ca’n Terra doesn’t seem like such an outlandish idea to people anymore.
To understand how and why Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa came up with the Ca’n Terra for their home, we can take a look at their goals and work process. One of the manifestos by Ensamble Studios, the organization that Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa are a part of, that stood out to me was, “Our work has no pigeonholes, no barriers. We design the shadow to obtain spaces of light and we can build with heavy elements to obtain weightless and transparent spaces. We go from stressed structures to dense structures, from the small scale of the house to the bigger scale of the city, from reordered nature to prefabricated systems” (Manifesto). Ensamble Studios’ manifesto gives insight into how something like Ca’n Terra, with how it has been renovated into a home that fits with Anton and Debora’s vision of home, can be made. Thinking from a historical standpoint, the concept of home would’ve been considered a cave to our ancient ancestors, changing as humans developed over time, ultimately making the idea of an old stone quarry being one not too far fetched. Ca’n Terra invokes the meaning of Wakefield’s quote through its thinking outside the box, leading to an impressive architectural structure that holds all the weight of the term “home”. Anton and Debora’s architectural innovation breaks down the standard of a normal home while giving no reason to not consider Ca’n Terra one.
The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset, located at the Moynihan Train Hall, is another example of how people can go against inviting walls into wide open spaces. The vision of The Hive was of a global metropolis, with the purpose of attracting the attention of the busy commuters traveling across the Moynihan Train Hall. The result was an inverted, surreal metropolitan cityscape hanging from the ceiling of the Moynihan Train Hall. The buildings that make up The Hive are influenced from metropolitan buildings around the world such as New York, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, and London.
Taking a look at the finalized result of Elmgreen and Dragset’s The Hive, it begs the question of how and why the two came up with its innovative design and unique placement? Elmgreen and Dragset believe their works can influence change, not only in terms of art but also in terms of politics, society, and preconceived perceptions. In an ArtSpeak interview by Linda Yablonsky on June 29, 2020, Michael Elmgreen states that he believes, “research is a process of forgetting the conclusions you’ve come to and testing the theses behind them. It’s forever doubting and questioning, and never coming up with a final result” (Yablonsky). In another quote in the same interview regarding the duo’s working process, Elmgreen states, “scientists need to doubt their results all the time in order to get farther. We would still be working with stone axes if not for that curiosity” (Yablonsky). By taking a look into the thought process of Elmgreen and Dragset, we can begin to understand how the duo came up with a uniquely innovative design that breaks from usual artistic standards in favor of creative innovation. The Hive could’ve simply been an art piece that was placed in an art gallery or simply grounded into an area that is much easier to notice, but it wouldn’t carry the same impact to it compared to where it was designed to be. In regards to the notion of being placed in an art gallery, Elmgreen states, “It feels so unreal that we go through the same motion of installing a show over and over again without discussing why we do this and what has happened before. It’s like trying to make a ritual celebration out of something that’s very artificial” (Yablonsky). It is no question that every choice design and placement was deliberate. To finish off, a final quote from Yablonsky’s interview, Elmgreen states, “But through our experiments, and those of many different artists, you can keep alive possibility of change. It’s so important to show that you can break the rules, even on a small scale, especially in societies that have become more and more regulated. If you don’t keep the flame alight, what is there, in the end?” (Yablonsky). It is clear that the artistic duo would agree with Wakefield in the importance of breaking down walls in wide open spaces rather than inviting them with much to show for it.
Our greatest enemies in creativity and innovation often are ourselves. Keeping things in boundaries through limitations and constraints may appear to help us by narrowing our focus, but it can be a double edged sword. Like Anton and Debora’s Ca’n Terra and The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Dragset, it is important to always be pushing our imagination and reevaluating our pre-existing beliefs of what is seen as normal to us. If Anton and Debora had only thought about the concept of a home in the usual standard, a beautiful architectural piece such as Ca’n Terra that challenges a normalized and everyday concept would never have been made. The same goes for The Hive; if Elmgreen and Dragset didn’t look to make change and didn’t believe in a necessity to make change, to think outside the box, the unique inverted global metropolis would never have been made to attract the awe of the Moynihan Train Hall’s increasingly busy commuters everyday. Rather than inviting walls into our imagination, it is imperative that we should be working towards breaking down any existing walls in order to broaden our creative freedom.
Alexis Guerra | Professor Tracy | Art 474/674 | 23 March 2021
Nature and Humanity
In Thomas Cole’s Landscape paintings I decided to specifically look at “Course of an Empire: Savage State,” 1836 and “The Voyage of Life: Infancy” 1842. Both paintings are the beginning of each series and found to greater in the landscape along with meaning. I chose not to the series as a whole as it’s important to see the beginning of each painting how much Cole’s ideas are seen through the beginning that gives us already an idea of what’s to be presented. The start of life is shown but leads a path to the next painting in the series. The “Savage State” is the beginning of nature but also seen as “life too wild and chaotic” while Infancy the wildlife is untouched but man is gliding through to see its wonders. Living hand in hand at the moment. Both paintings so to speak both give the same feelings that Thomas Cole portrays to the viewer with a state of nature that can not be contained along with a state that shouldn’t be touched or disrupted.
Oscar Wilde put this into words, “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter” (The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). No matter if it’s a portrait or painting of landscape there is an aspect within the pieces that are coming entirely from the artist. Whether it is being the lighting or an emphasis on a certain part of the subject. Thomas Cole in both pieces as mention being “Course of an Empire: Savage State,” 1836 and “The Voyage of Life: Infancy” 1842 really are the start of series that show that of his beliefs. Cole brings to light a metaphor and moral into the painting with every look you give the paintings. If both painting the Savage State and Infancy does not show the progression of life but it starts without too much disruption by man. It starts as a youthful and living without disruption but as time goes on till there are so many changes in life that it masks true nature. Cole brings what he feels within what he sees and brings it into the painting.
In more depth let’s first look at “Savage State” it’s dawn and the land is lush with life. The native is living without destroying the land. “Overall, rocks, wood, and water brooded the spirit of repose, and the silent energy of nature stirred the soul to its innermost depths.” (Thomas Cole). There is no empire built on top of anything yet and it’s the landing breathing, living without anything to mask its true appearance. On the left side of the painting the Native American setup tipis around a fire in a clearing it is integrated with nature and does no harm around. There is no stump that is broken but instead in a clearing that isn’t surrounded by a lot of nature. Predominantly nature isn’t disrupted or anything to mask what was once there inland. There is seen in the foreground of the “Savage State” two hunters hunting a deer. It has also seen a path following this deer set up by the land. It’s abundant in life still and shows how natural life uninterrupted by empires and humans masks its beauty. This is ideally what the land should be and look like. Thomas Cole believes this is what the painting itself is and that of his beliefs. Nothing to fully disrupt the life that is seen instead it’s integrated as one. Truly this what Thomas Cole knows the landscape should be without any disruptions to mask the land and its beautiful creation. It’s more evident more so than “Course of Empire: Savage State” where we don’t see youth but Native Americans in a clearing.
“The Voyage of Life: Infancy” the painting once again is of life as the baby is guided in the boat by the angel showing an untouched world that is lush with nature all around. Youth to show the land is more abundant with that life. Therefrom the cave outward is a baby abundant in life but also the land with plant life, a sunrise lighting early yellow on all life. This creates a more lively glow on the piece and emphasizes both the baby, angel, boat helm along with plant life. It’s the same premise to show a more predominant land filled with nature than one with landscapes and without human disruption. That the beginning of any stage is more lively and unmasked but soon is taken abruptly throughout the series. While Infancy Cole shows how life begins the first stage in a different reiteration from Savage’s state. It shows the beginning of nature of that of the baby is that more lively and untouched. An angel present as though this is God’s land showing that of more religious belief from Cole unknowingly to the viewer at a glance until we see the angel which is significant to piece entirety. The angel gives off the impression to not disrupt God’s land or harm it in a way of destroying what is around. The boat itself and the only human baby in it are only on water and to show the distance at hand. These two details do not touch the rocks of life on land but completely stay in the water that is moving. It also shows a hand untouched by humanity and shows how much Thomas Cole’s morals are that of nature to be unmasked or untouched by humanity.
The landscape isn’t showing only nature but that of Thomas Cole’s own morals and beliefs. It’s much more than the land and at a glance from only the beginning of each series, there is so much that is uncontrolled. Nothing to mask what is there or anything disrupts life entirely. It gives a feeling that the landscape is full of life. It is seen to the great details made into the landscape plant life which are more than that of the humans living on paintings. It is more of a distance we see humanity lived with nature but also at a distance.
Jules Ditzler
Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001
03/24/2021
First Opinion Paper
Of course money is a necessity, however money is not the only source of wealth that comes from painting. Some paint because they have a desire to express an emotion and this desire is as strong for some as the desire to take long walks along the beach as the sun sprinkles pink and purple hues across the sand.
The quote, “No man ever painted history as if he could obtain employment in portraits,” (Gilbert Stuart, quoted in Richardson, Gilbert Stuart) relates to
York Harbor, Coast of Maine by Martin Johnson Heade because Heade is one of those people who paints for more than just money. Martin Johnson Heade found that his desire to paint began to be inspired by the world around him as industrialization started taking hold of America one state at a time. He did not see what needed to be changed about the beautiful world that was already around him so he began to focus his art more so on showing how nature can provide a source of tranquility to his viewers and not just a potential source of income. The tranquility that Heade is so easily able to convey is due to his use of luminosity, which is the use of bright lights and colors to show defined landscapes.
The painting is 15 1/4 × 30 1/4 inches and has been signed in the lower left corner. There are both bright textures and depths since Heade used oil on a canvas and his choice to use oil probably stemmed from the paint’s wide availability back in 1877. The viewer’s focus starts from the luminous spots in the clouds in the top right corner and leads to the shadow it is creating directly under it. From there the shoreline of the harbor guides attention to the left side of the composition where the sun reflects on the water as if there was a sliver of water made out of diamonds. Then the land becomes elevated to the same height as the gorgeously shaded sun behind an ominous layer of clouds.
The painting has a beautiful use of light and reflection upon the water as the sun is either rising or falling. So much technique is needed to make the light be so realistic but Heade makes it look so simple with how easily they achieve this. There are three boats floating in the water that bring a sense of motion yet encapsulate stillness in the same frame. One is larger and to the right of the composition as the other two are slightly smaller and towards the center of the harbor.
The boats cast a shadow and one shows a person in order to convey the size of the landscape they are immersed in. The shoreline becomes thicker towards the land to the left of the composition and the front leaving a clear indication of shape of the harbor. The foliage in the foreground is minimal with only a few slivers of grass protruding from a bush of sorts that seems to be in front of a large rock or boulder that is covered up half way from the bottom with moss. These rocks match the half covered in moss rocks that are slightly larger but more towards the right of the composition.
The foliage in the background seems to be very similar with taller bushes that continue to lead into even taller trees as the focus draws farther back in the composition. The rule of thirds can be seen by the bright spots breaching the clouds only in two locations. One location is over the boats floating on the harbor to the right and the other is more to the left and lower but is creating the largest reflection of the two. The feeling that becomes present while looking at this scene is stillness because I can almost feel the moisture in the air from the density of the clouds that allows them to diffuse the sunlight in such an aesthetic tone that time almost seems to fade away. Both the water and the sails of the boats are resting which adds even more stillness to the composition.
Another emotion that this composition evokes is reflection, not only because of how the luminous spots in the sky reflect off of the water in the harbor, but also because of how this landscape makes me think about my own relationship with nature. I have been steadily gaining speed on the road to sustainable living in my own life because I too see how the world could prosper from consuming less. Technology has its uses but when it is combined with humanities desire to help one another, then I believe that we can truly restore the earth as closely as possible to the healthy state it was in before its resources began to be overconsumed.
Today’s world still has a large following of people who would prefer to live in harmony with the environment rather than growing out of alignment with it. One of the most simple ways to live in harmony with nature would be to respect that the resources must be spread out in order to do any real good. Some people have started living as close to off grid as possible in order to reduce the amount of resources that they take from the earth, while others have been able to do smaller, but not any less important things, such as just choosing a paper bag over a plastic bag at the grocery store.
Klaire Viduya
Robert Tracy
ART 674-1001
25 March 2021
Essence more than a specific detail is what truly captures a subject. Often, in any process of the creation of art, once a pen is put into paper, one of the first few things to do is to draw what is perceived- what the heart of the subject might be. This technique is seen in architecture time and time again; sometimes you only have a few minutes with the things you can sketch and create unfinished work. Despite the messier and rougher results, the point of the art created still comes across with just few simple sketches.
Capturing an essence rather than just the details has been something that is prevalent in a lot of painted artworks be it portraits or landscapes. Interpretation of the subject can definitely change how they can be portrayed as well as how an artist wants to show them off as a whole.
“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). An artist interprets how these works are presented to them and how they perceived their subjects by the end of the day. It could be how they know their sitters or it could also be how they consumed what was presented to them at the moment. Either way, an artwork is not just capturing someone’s physical likeness but their entire being, not just a historically accurate moment but the feeling as it is experienced, and sometimes not something that’s practically there but an atmosphere.
In John Singer Sargent’s El Jaleo (1882), the painting can be seen as the final result of Sargent’s travel throughout Spain and North Africa, the fascination he has developed for watching dance, and just the art that surrounds it like the light and the music. The full essence of the subject matter comes through the painting even with the more nondescript things in the background, the faces aren’t too detailed and looked clear, there is no big indication on where the place is, where the dance is happening, the viewers aren’t sure who these people are. But the heart of the moment, what made Sargent interested in drawing the sketches for this painting in the first place is what can attract the viewer to whatever is happening inside the painting. This essence is portrayed in the rhythm, the dramatics, and just the general movement of the piece. In a way, this piece could be seen as an artwork that’s purely made from the feeling of a memory.
Going on a more closed up scale in works, the same principle can be said for the works of Thomas Eakins. He has painted portraits that captures more of what the person is like rather than just the surface level of what’s there. This is very evident on the portraits he made of Mary Adeline Williams (1899) and the one of Walt Whitman (1887-88). In the Portrait of Mary Adeline Williams, Eakins focused more on the character of his subject rather than just the beauty. In this work, Eakins portrays the feeling of encouragement and directness that can be inferred as what he felt with this particular subject. Making the personality of Williams reflect more through his artwork.
The notion that the painter’s feelings are projected more into the subjects than the other way around in this instance would be more convincing when looking at the painting Eakins has done of Walt Whitman. It can be inferred that Whitman and Eakins both know each other and have at least some sort of connection judging by the fact that Eakins has some photographs of Whitman on top of his works depicting the writer. Whitman’s portrait exudes his personality and character over his beauty just like how it went for Mary Adeline Williams but when it’s looked at more, it reveals a psychological insight of Whitman’s character to the viewer. It shows the effects of the isolation and social uselessness to Whitman who was staying at his brother’s home in New Jersey after suffering from a stroke. It was noted that Whitman was bedridden during his entire stay at his brother’s house. As Eakins was taken in the residence, he must have witnessed the frustrations as well as empathized with Whitman’s situation and that showed through the portrait that Eakins made of him.
The feeling of the artist is heavily intertwined with what the end result of his works might be. It could be an accumulation of experiences from them that have created the artwork, a collage of memories and emotions experienced boiled into a canvas. It could be a feeling, a knowledge of someone familiar to the artist and how they are portrayed reflects on the feelings of the artist towards them and during. The artist can be seen as a viewing lens when looking at their works. It’s not going to be a fully accurate depiction of the subject but rather an interpretation. Perceiving and projecting in art are both highly affective of where the work ends up taking the artist and how the viewers take and see this once it is done.
Tyler Lambert
Dr. Robert Tracy
Art 474 1001
21, March 2021
Opinion/Position Paper
Artists have been painting different types of portraits inspired by the figure. However, artists design their figure’s portraits with their own creativity, perspective, and emotions. In 1891, Oscar Wilde stated: “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). Wilde’s perspective on portraits is reflected in both John Trumbull’s George Washington at Verplank and William Sidney Mount’s The Bone Player. Both Trumbull and Pelham portray their figure’s portraits in their own setting, emotion, and perspective. They interpret their figure’s portraits in their own creativity and personal expression.
John Turnbull is a painter who served the military as a Colonel until he studied art from 1780 to 1789 in both London and America. His artworks focus on both history paintings and patriotic temperament. In 1790, Turnbull painted a portrait of: George Washington at Verplanck. Turnbull created his portrait using oil paint on a 108 x 72 inch canvas. Turnbull’s portrait captures George Washington, in his military attire, standing next to his white horse outside in Verplanck. In his artwork, Turnbull incorporates his own interpretation of both George Washington and his army’s position during the American Revolutionary War. In his artwork, Washington is looking towards the horizon. Also, the background features a desulated battlefield in a bright blue sky. It creates the idea of both of Washington’s victory and confidence after a battle. Turnbull captures George Washington in a positive environment to emphasize his belief in America’s strength and advantage during the American Revolutionary War. Also, Turnbull illustrates America’s history with war in his portrait.
Turnbull recreates American history with the American Revolutionary War in George Washington’s portrait. In his artwork, he captures Verplanck as a desolate war environment with both a black and brown color scheme. Also, he includes a small ravine with two army soldiers preparing for battle in his background. In addition, Turnbull included black smoke on the right side of the background. Finally, he captures George Washington in his military uniform with a sword, horse, and protection helmet. Turnbull portrayed Verplanck to represent the American Revolutionary War in George Washington’s portrait. Turnbull captured George Washington in both a confident position and positive environment to reflect America’s strength and advantage during a battle. Also, Turnbull portrayed both George Washington and Verplanck in a battleground to reflect American Revolutionary War. Turnbull painted George Washington at Verplanck to reflect America’s history of the American Revolutionary War.
William Sidney Mount is a genre painter who focuses on uncompromising straight forward realism. His realism art style incorporates both lively movement and anecdotal references. In 1856, Mount painted a portrait of: The Bone Player. Mount created his portrait by using oil paint on a 36 1/8 x 29 1/8 inch canvas. Mount’s portrait consists of an African-American gentleman holding two pairs of rib bones in both hands. In his artwork, Mount portrayed his interpretation of the Bone Player through both his art style and his figure’s movements. The Bone Player is lifting both his hands up in the air to present his bones in the portrait. Also, he is gesturing his head towards an audience with a smile. Both emotions and gestures create the idea that the Bone Player is actively playing music with his bones. Also, both the Bone Player’s movement and emotions create the idea that his portrait is captured in a positive environment. Mount portrayed the Bone Player as a lively musician performing a show in a positive environment. Mount captures both his own interpretation and belief of how the Bone Player should be presented in his portrait. Also, he designed his portrait based on his own interpretation of realism.
William Mount displays a straightforward sense of realism in his portrayal of The Bone Player. In his artwork, Mount portrayed the Bone Player in a realistic scenario based on both his figure and environment designs. The Bone Player is depicted as a realistic male figure based on his physical structure and proportions, skin and clothing textures, facial features, proper shading techniques, and precise color schemes. Also, Mount depicted the Bone Player as both a gentleman and musician based on his outfit design. Both of the Bone Player’s dress jacket and pants create the idea that he is a refined gentleman. Also, the Bone Player’s hat, bowtie, and vest create the idea that he is a 1800s professional musician. In addition, Mount captures the Bone Player sitting in a dimly-lit room with a brown background, a table with both a vase and glass cup, and a toolbox. This scenario creates the idea that the Bone Player is gesturing in front of people at either a club or restaurant. Mount depicted both the Bone Player and his environment, so they would cooperate properly in a realistic environment. Mount painted The Bone Player as a lively man in a realistic environment to represent his art style.
Artists have designed their figure’s portraits with their own creativity, perspective, and emotions. In 1891, Oscar Wilde stated: “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). Both Trumbull and Pelham portray their figure’s portraits in their own setting, emotion, and perspective. They interpret their figure’s portraits in their own creativity and personal expression.
Sophia Brattoli
ART 474-472
First Opinion Paper
March 23, 2021
Umberto Boccioni once said, “In order for a portrait to be a work of art, it must not resemble the sitter”. In this quote I can clearly picture the works of Rosa Bonheur. She was born into a family of artists in a time when being a female artist was unheard of, and certainly was not a respected title. The academy in Paris did not accept any female students, so Bonheur would copy paintings at the Louvre. Her drawings “did not resemble the sitter” because she didn’t have the opportunity to have anyone sit for her. Instead she had to make her way in an unprecedented manner, setting the stage for other female artists to come all the way down to myself.
Bonheur began attending dissections and anatomy lessons at the National Veterinary Institute and made many sketches to use as reference for her drawings. Throughout time art students use the actual anatomy of things to create illustrations and paintings. For example, the kneecaps and elbows are circular shapes where the ribcage and pelvis make more box shapes. This in-depth examination that Bonheur is exhibiting truly shows her dedication to the skill of drawing, because with this deep foundation and understanding of anatomy an artist can manipulate their subject in any way they want. This is what Da Vinci did with the Vitruvian man and Michelangelo did with his sculptures. These men set a precedent that would be followed hundreds of years later.
Bonheur began following the traditional art schooling system from her home since she belonged to a family of established painters, which began with copying masters, and eventually moving on to sketching live animals that were outside the family home. She started becoming very famous for her expert drawings of animals. When she sketched or painted outside of the home, Bonheur adopted an affinity for wearing men’s clothes so that eyes would not be drawn to her as the odd female artist. She began travelling through England and Scotland and was praised for her skills by Queen Victoria. This interaction shot Bonheur to fame, and in 1894 she was commissioned by her home country of France for a painting. This painting was “Ploughing in the Nivernais” and would become one of her most famous works. This painting is currently displayed in the famous Musée d’ Orsay in Paris, and they detail that the piece depicts a team of oxen ploughing the soil before the winter began. It seems that Bonheur’s strength was capturing these small almost immaterial acts to us today, but for citizens of the French countryside this shows a recognizable act. We get a sense of memory from this piece, the feeling that someone could see this displayed and be instantly drawn back to a certain place and time. The light coats of the oxen in the foreground draw them into view first, placing them against the tonal sky. The rolling hills in the background give a sense of anticipation, since we as the viewer are informed that this is an act that happens right before the trees turn colors in Autumn. We are then directed to view the active moving people, which again give a sense of tribute to the people of that place in that time. They are tending to their ground so that they may use it again in the coming spring. Such a touching tribute to the people that was commissioned by the state is the reason that this piece has such an undying and timeless presence, and deservingly gave Bonheur acclaim.
Another one of Bonheur’s most famous pieces is “The Horse Fair” created in 1852. This piece is absolutely massive, standing eight feet tall and sixteen-feet wide. It is currently displayed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, and the museum details that Bonheur tediously created this piece by standing in the horse market square in Paris twice a week for over a year and half. This piece depicts and expert understanding of contrast, again displaying the lighter colored focal point horses against a very muted background. Again, to me this seems to be a tribute to the people of the town, depicting what seems to be an everyday, if not weekly act of parading horses for sale. It gives us a feeling of belonging, and the scale of the piece attributes to that, drawing the viewer in as if they are in the place that Bonheur is standing. Diagonal lines are created with the horse’s legs throughout the piece, not only giving it a ton of action and movement, but also drawing the viewer’s eye from left to right and back around again. A closer look at the piece shows a wide range of expression from every living thing in the scene. The men show strain from holding back a multitude of clearly bewildered animals, some of them with eyes and mouths open wide. Other horses and gentlemen seem much more calm, proud of the fact that their horse is drawing the eyes of a crowd depicted on the right hand side. The painting was debuted at the Paris Salon, a great collection of artists and critics that determine the worth of a given artist, and essentially establish the tone of the art scene for that period. The Salon gave wild praise of the piece, giving Bonheur the legitimacy of her male counterparts and solidifying her place as a lasting artist.
Even with many hurdles put in her way, Rosa Bonheur beat the odds and became an incredibly highly regarded artist. Although we can say that she came from a place of privilege, being a white woman with a full family of artists, I cannot say at the end of this examination that this achievement was easy for her. In viewing many of her pieces I get a sense of homeliness, and that I can clearly place myself in the time that the particular painting curates. To evoke this feeling so clearly in the viewers mind is the goal of any artist, and it is why I see Rosa Bonheur as a legend just like many other artists we study, regardless of sex and privilege.
Maria Carrillo-Ortega
Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001
24 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
Charles Willson Peale’s Staircase Group 1795 and George Caleb Bingham’s Raftsmen Playing Cards 1847 are two artworks I’ll be speaking about, and how each artist conveyed their passion and ideas without physically appearing. “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). I interpreted that the sitter depicted by the painter isn’t the true visual focus, but rather the painter who reveals himself through the canvas indirectly by expressing their ideas and passion in a different form. The two men were in a unique position in the newly founded nation that we know as America, which granted Peale and Bingham a fresh canvas for them to leave their mark and push the art world forward. Peale the illusionist broadened the world of art, and Bingham’s romantic view of the frontier, fitting for the newly founded nation.
Charles Willson Peale’s, Staircase Group 1795, and how the double portrait showcasing his sons can be interpreted as an extension of himself even without physically appearing on the canvas himself. At first glance, the portrait doesn’t hold much meaning until you understand Peale’s views and ambitions. The Staircase Group’s popularity stemmed from its thought-provoking composition, and the illusion caused viewers to take another look to see a new window of what art can provide. The two young men in the portrait are Raphaelle and Titian Ramsay, Peale’s two sons. They’re rendered beautifully and in clarity in how lifelike they appear at first glance to be real due to their lifesize. What drives the nail to Peale’s illusion is the physical first step attached and the frame around the portrait uniting the painting to the room, thus becoming another part of the canvas. The use of space around and outside the portrait opens up a whole new dimension than just the wall the canvas resides. It brings us into Peale’s shoes momentarily and we briefly see a part of his life through his eyes with his family. The boys appear to be walking up the stairs, then they’ve turned around toward us, Titian, the figure standing on the top, cutting into the frame as he points upward like he’s inviting the viewer to the upper floor with him and his brother. Raphaelle even pauses to look over his shoulder to see if he was being called upon. Executed by Peale’s keen eye in lighting and careful detail in shadows caused by the frame surrounding the portrait, noting how the light shines on both boys’ faces and background as if the door frame was indeed interfering with the flow of light. Luring us deeper into the trick and subtle details like the admission ticket laying at Raphaelle’s feet as if he carelessly dropped it during his ascent up the steps. It creates a linear visionary trail for us to follow from the step where the ticket lies and steadily moving up to Raphaelle before our eyes end with Titian on the top of the staircase where he’s about to exit the scene. But I took another step after seeing the surface of the painting. I noted Peale created an inviting and relaxing atmosphere because of how he focused on establishing the authenticity by blending the physicality and the architecture to bring us into the scene and experience what he felt. Details like the posture of Raphaelle walking up the stairs with confidence, art supplies in hand, and Titian stopping so we can follow. These actions seen by the boys reflect Peale’s vision of the future, implying what’s in store within the realm of art, but what new innovations are to come for not just his family but for the nation as a whole. Peale didn’t just capture his sons’ profiles, he captured their entire being and beyond that he envisioned what’s to come for himself and his sons as they move up in American life.
George Caleb Bingham’s Raftsmen Playing Cards 1847, a snippet of life on the water filled with simplicity, entranced tranquility of the men’s life down the river. The quiet moment among the six raftsmen aboard the raft, the majority of them preoccupied in a card game right in the middle of the raft, one man alone deep in thought and the other gently maneuvering the raft along the calm stream. You see the two players are immersed in the game, the man on the right holds a hard expression as he carefully reviews his cards to decide his next move while the man over his shoulder watches closely. Then the man in the middle dressed in green tones patiently waits for his crewmate to further the game. The familiarity between the men is evident based on how they play games, walk around barefoot, and enjoy the peace floating down the river together. The atmosphere creates an invitation for the viewer to participate in the intimate occasion the raftsmen have. The sitters of his painting aren’t anyone in particular because it allows anyone including himself to be able to put themselves in the sitter’s spot and immerse themselves in the scenery. The lighting helps keep the focus on the men, their clothes bright in color compared to their surroundings, while the river and distance become hazy. This detail could be Bingham’s view of the American frontier, with people living in the moment while traveling toward a future that lies wide open and unknown. His view of the early American dream showcases a stable, harmonious region of the self-made man venturing out into the unknown while still maintaining a sense of calm instead of painting the unclaimed territory as dangerous and tension-driven. Life on the Missouri River through Bingham’s lens is more romanticized, the tranquility of the river, and he shares it with us, viewers, through these six raftsmen sitting back in a relaxing game of cards while letting themselves move into the unknown. The portrait not only captures the realism of the American frontier, but it captures the soul of America.
Bingham and Peale approached art differently from realism, illusionism to the genre, but each man put their passion into their work. They didn’t just paint the sitter, no instead, they consumed and interpreted the information provided to them to create something much more
engaging and mind-opening.
Maria Carrillo-Ortega
Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001
24 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
Charles Willson Peale’s Staircase Group 1795 and George Caleb Bingham’s Raftsmen Playing Cards 1847 are two artworks I’ll be speaking about, and how each artist conveyed their passion and ideas without physically appearing. “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). I interpreted that the sitter depicted by the painter isn’t the true visual focus, but rather the painter who reveals himself through the canvas indirectly by expressing their ideas and passion in a different form. The two men were in a unique position in the newly founded nation that we know as America, which granted Peale and Bingham a fresh canvas for them to leave their mark and push the art world forward. Peale the illusionist broadened the world of art, and Bingham’s romantic view of the frontier, fitting for the newly founded nation.
Charles Willson Peale’s, Staircase Group 1795, and how the double portrait showcasing his sons can be interpreted as an extension of himself even without physically appearing on the canvas himself. At first glance, the portrait doesn’t hold much meaning until you understand Peale’s views and ambitions. The Staircase Group’s popularity stemmed from its thought-provoking composition, and the illusion caused viewers to take another look to see a new window of what art can provide. The two young men in the portrait are Raphaelle and Titian Ramsay, Peale’s two sons. They’re rendered beautifully and in clarity in how lifelike they appear at first glance to be real due to their lifesize. What drives the nail to Peale’s illusion is the physical first step attached and the frame around the portrait uniting the painting to the room, thus becoming another part of the canvas. The use of space around and outside the portrait opens up a whole new dimension than just the wall the canvas resides. It brings us into Peale’s shoes momentarily and we briefly see a part of his life through his eyes with his family. The boys appear to be walking up the stairs, then they’ve turned around toward us, Titian, the figure standing on the top, cutting into the frame as he points upward like he’s inviting the viewer to the upper floor with him and his brother. Raphaelle even pauses to look over his shoulder to see if he was being called upon. Executed by Peale’s keen eye in lighting and careful detail in shadows caused by the frame surrounding the portrait, noting how the light shines on both boys’ faces and background as if the door frame was indeed interfering with the flow of light. Luring us deeper into the trick and subtle details like the admission ticket laying at Raphaelle’s feet as if he carelessly dropped it during his ascent up the steps. It creates a linear visionary trail for us to follow from the step where the ticket lies and steadily moving up to Raphaelle before our eyes end with Titian on the top of the staircase where he’s about to exit the scene. But I took another step after seeing the surface of the painting. I noted Peale created an inviting and relaxing atmosphere because of how he focused on establishing the authenticity by blending the physicality and the architecture to bring us into the scene and experience what he felt. Details like the posture of Raphaelle walking up the stairs with confidence, art supplies in hand, and Titian stopping so we can follow. These actions seen by the boys reflect Peale’s vision of the future, implying what’s in store within the realm of art, but what new innovations are to come for not just his family but for the nation as a whole. Peale didn’t just capture his sons’ profiles, he captured their entire being and beyond that he envisioned what’s to come for himself and his sons as they move up in American life.
George Caleb Bingham’s Raftsmen Playing Cards 1847, a snippet of life on the water filled with simplicity, entranced tranquility of the men’s life down the river. The quiet moment among the six raftsmen aboard the raft, the majority of them preoccupied in a card game right in the middle of the raft, one man alone deep in thought and the other gently maneuvering the raft along the calm stream. You see the two players are immersed in the game, the man on the right holds a hard expression as he carefully reviews his cards to decide his next move while the man over his shoulder watches closely. Then the man in the middle dressed in green tones patiently waits for his crewmate to further the game. The familiarity between the men is evident based on how they play games, walk around barefoot, and enjoy the peace floating down the river together. The atmosphere creates an invitation for the viewer to participate in the intimate occasion the raftsmen have. The sitters of his painting aren’t anyone in particular because it allows anyone including himself to be able to put themselves in the sitter’s spot and immerse themselves in the scenery. The lighting helps keep the focus on the men, their clothes bright in color compared to their surroundings, while the river and distance become hazy. This detail could be Bingham’s view of the American frontier, with people living in the moment while traveling toward a future that lies wide open and unknown. His view of the early American dream showcases a stable, harmonious region of the self-made man venturing out into the unknown while still maintaining a sense of calm instead of painting the unclaimed territory as dangerous and tension-driven. Life on the Missouri River through Bingham’s lens is more romanticized, the tranquility of the river, and he shares it with us, viewers, through these six raftsmen sitting back in a relaxing game of cards while letting themselves move into the unknown. The portrait not only captures the realism of the American frontier, but it captures the soul of America.
Bingham and Peale approached art differently from realism, illusionism to the genre, but each man put their passion into their work. They didn’t just paint the sitter, no instead, they consumed and interpreted the information provided to them to create something much more
engaging and mind-opening.
Brian Martinez
Art 474
Robert Tracy
3/25/21
First Opinion Paper
For this paper I chose to dive into Mary Stevenson Cassatt’s painting Mrs. Duffee Seated on a Striped Sofa, Reading. Putting on the lens of the quote “By portraits I do not mean the outline and coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” by Lord Chesterfield. To start, the painting mainly caught my eye because it is very painterly. You can see the artist render some areas in a smooth way, but others are loose and free. The brush stroke are very relevant in the visual aesthetic of the painting. The quote felt perfect because the painting itself is beautiful and aesthetic, but you can tell there is lots of substance and context. To myself the quote is a way of expressing how portraits not only attempt to achieve beauty or aesthetic qualities, but to capture the soul of humanity. Cassatt does a great job of capturing the soul of a person, while still painting in a very beautiful manner.
The Painting is of a white woman sitting on a striped sofa reading a book. She has red hair that’s put into some sort of bun, and is wearing a colorful dress with red stripes, but also a large blue patch going right down the middle. The rendering makes the blue parts of the dress look like silk fabric. She is leaning on her left arm while holding the book with her right, and it seems she’s about 1/ 4 of the way through the book. The sofa is striped like the title says, and it seems to in some sort of moments have sheen to it. The painting was made in 1876, and the clothes and furniture really give the nod to that era. The painting consists mainly of warm tones and has a loosely rendered raw umber background.
Cassatt has a beautiful way of rendering, but the context here is very thought provoking. First thought is about the couch, we all can immediately associate that with being inside the setting of a home. Generally in a living room, but can also be in other rooms. So the painting itself is based within a home. In modern times we understand the struggles that women had to overcome to gain rights to do anything in our society, so Cassatt is making a statement. Now this woman is reading, which I imagine in 1876 was a symbol of some kind of status. There are many signs of status or class in this painting, from the dress to the couch. Books may have just been available to those who could afford them, but then education may not have been offered to a housewife. Therefore they would have to be self-taught and put forth their own effort to educate themselves.
That part of the painting is where I believe Cassatt captured the heart and mind of humanity. We have this tendency to endure the worst and find a way to come out on top. This painting shows a woman who is being put down by society, and not being allowed to even have a formal education within a school. Therefore just adapting and finding a way to teach herself what she wants to know. Expanding the mind and adapting to the circumstances. Humans have a way of adapting to any environment, and if society puts a group of people down they generally find a way to overcome it. Through the resilience of those who break the rules and push on ahead. Someone like Mrs. Duffee here who went against societal norms is pushing humanity forward through one small effort.
Cassatt is also doing her part by showing what the reality of being a woman in those times was like. Having to self educate while also being pushed to marry and have kids. We almost still have the same today, but because of the efforts of people before us there isn’t much pressure anymore. Cassatt is also doing what artists do best, and shining a light on a part of society that needs to be seen. She is a woman painter and what else to paint but the truth of her reality. Art has a way of entering another person’s mind and persuading them on an idea, because it is showing them a reality that is not only true but possible. Cassatt was in a way saying that women can and will be educated in America. She was paving a new future for the women of the future.
Kylelain Corinth
Professor Tracy
ART 472-1001 & ART 474-1002
25 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
When artists shifted their focus towards nature and the sublime, they were met with both criticism and admiration. The following quote demonstrates how many felt about artist’s less than perfectly replicated landscapes. “Your color is not true; all these contrasts of light and dark make me think that you paint by moonlight, and as for your life studies, they resemble nature as a violin case resembles a violin” (Pierre Guerin, quoted in Batissier, Biographiede Gericault, in La Revue du XIX Siecle, 1842). While an artist has their own intention for a piece, it is still subjected to the interpretations of others. Where one may find beauty in the less structured interpretations of nature, others see a rejection of the skills and teachings of the masters. Nature, specifically, is a totalizing and ever-changing space. As such, it is not always the intention of the artist to paint a landscape as they would a portrait, paying attention to only what one sees and not feels. To paint the sublime of nature is to intertwine oneself with the overwhelm and emotional experience of the surrounding landscape. Consequently, one’s depiction of a landscape has one’s experience woven into it. The landscape rendered may resemble nature in some respects and seem wholly different in others. Hannibal Crossing the Alps by Joseph Mallord Willaim Turner demonstrates the duality in painting landscapes.
Many landscape paintings are soft, with a lightness that inspires feelings of serenity and calm. In contrast, I was overwhelmed by the twisting composition and shadowed scenery of Hannibal Crossing the Alps. The effortless harmony between the light and dark in addition to an absence of a detailed narrative to follow depicted in Hannibal Crossing the Alps demands the attention of the viewer. It required me to search the painting to uncover quiet details, to form a whole picture of the piece. While viewing the piece my emotions were often pulled in multiple directions. With the light shining through the left side of the painting, it allowed for a space of hope. However, as my eye traveled further right, the looming presence of the storm washed the peace away. The natural landscape was manipulated by Turner to inspire these feelings in response to not only the sublime of nature but also what the setting represented for so many people during the time.
A wave of black storm is crashing down on the Alps on the right side of the canvas. The soft shadows and blurs of blacks and greys threatening to swallow the orange sun shining bright above the famous crossing create a sense of despair. Furthermore, at first glance, there appears to be the curves and edges of a mountain, but when given more time to consider, actually resembles an avalanche advancing down the mountain into the valley below. I felt inconsequential in response to the power of this uncontrollable force of nature. When I first saw the painting, I imagined myself standing within the landscape Turner rendered. The push and pull of the storm sweeping over the mountain and the avalanche advancing down towards the nearly invisible soldiers drew me into the artwork. I recognized feeling inconsequential in response to the soldiers having no ability to defend against the vast expanse of the natural landscape. The immensity and totalizing experience of nature that Turner was able to communicate within this piece opened my eyes to how little effect humans have on these natural forces at work. It is easy to forget the terrible power that nature holds. The fate of the soldiers traveling through the Alps while these storms were raging was entirely dependent upon the swirling mists and smudged shadows of winds and rains falling down upon them.
My experience of this piece is everchanging, causing the flow of my thoughts and emotions to sweep through my mind just as the brush strokes in Hannibal Crossing the Alps do. Turner’s landscape painting creates a space that fosters an internal and mindful experience of nature and the sublime, allowing one to lose oneself when met with this other. The ineffability of the sublime becomes the artwork of the landscape painting and the natural setting itself. Turner does not place emphasis on explicit detail, instead favoring soft lines and impressions of forms in the distance. Through which, Turner sought a deeper truth to express more than what could be written, heard, and seen. He wished to express honesty in his depiction of the Alps, as opposed to the often-romanticized artworks of other artists before him of such landscapes. Images became his articulation, communicating to me the awe and fear one must feel in the presence of a magnificent landscape such as the Alps. My experience transcended the physical, allowing me to move with the flow of the layered and blending colors that swirl across the battlegrounds and mountains. Similar to the winds and rains of storms that are at once peaceful and terrible, echoing the paradoxical qualities of nature.
Where Turner’s driven brushstrokes depict the sublime, expressing emotion and spirituality, landscape paintings in America during the nineteenth century often conveyed a different message. Americans rendered landscapes to appease society, ascribing societal values as the meaning behind such works. These sentiments include moral views and religious views among other ideals. Fifteen years after Turner’s Hannibal Crossing the Alps, in America, Thomas Cole painted Last of the Mohicans. While the painting has perimeters with clear borders to where the landscape ends, and the surrounding world begins, it appears as if the natural scene Cole rendered stretches on forever. Observing this painting reveals a lush forest of oranges, reds, greens, and browns all distinguished yet blending seamlessly together. Towering mountains can be seen stretching into the distance, surrounding the deep valley below. I was especially drawn to the figures standing in a circle in the middle of the valley. Similar to Turner’s piece, the people appear small and insignificant in the presence of the surrounding landscape. As my eye traveled along the canvas I recognized how when one steps into nature, they become a part of it. From the perspective of Cole’s painting, the people look as if they are a part of the landscape. This realization invokes a sense of peace in that in the presence of such a force, people are the same. We are all just visitors of a place that exists in entirely separate from us and that will continue to exist long after we are gone. Societal ideals in both Europe and America shifted from people viewing nature as something that they should change and control to recognizing it as the spiritual and magnificent presence that it is.
The soft glowing blue of the sky in Last of the Mohicans shines down on the tense meeting below. In the clearing, the figures dressed in burnt reds, light blues, and deep yellows are illuminated by the sun. Dissimilar to Hannibal Crossing the Alps, in which the figures gathered on the mountain are overshadowed by dreary greys and ominous skies. When looking at the two pieces side by side, the stark contrast between the emotional experience of each piece is evident. Turner’s painting brings up a sense of fear and uncertainty not only in the prescience of the storm but also of the soldier’s futures. In contrast, Cole’s artwork insights feelings of awe and wonder. There is a calmness in the gathered figures, as if they are content to be within the clearing. Moreover, the lightness in the skies, clarity in the distant mountains, and vibrant trees encourage feelings of contentment and optimism. Both artists communicated the sublime of nature in a unique way. Through their works, I was able to experience the sublime, outshining the narrative of the story.
Bernardo Martinez
Robert Tracy
ART 474 Section 1001
21 March 2021
Opinion/Position Paper
According to Oscar Wilde, “every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (The Picture of Dorian Grey, 1891). When one creates art, they have absolute creative freedom to interpret a sitter (or anything in their surroundings) as they see fit. Tone is subjective, so two people can look at the same thing or environment and interpret it in two completely different ways. While an artist can do their best to satisfy their patrons requests, an artist’s creative vision might not necessarily always agree with that of the patron. Despite any potential disagreements, at the end of the day, the artist is the one creating the portrait and therefore it is their vision that makes it into the final painting. If an artist is sacrificing their own creative ideals in order to conform to those of a patron, then they are not truly putting their heart and soul into a piece. In stating that a good portrait is one of the artist, Wilde is essentially stating that one’s artwork is effectively an extension of their true self. Not only can this apply to portraits, but to all other types of paintings as well, especially landscape painting.
The first piece I will be discussing is Martin Johnson Heade’s painting called Approaching Thunder Storm (1859), an oil on canvas piece that stands at 28” x 44”. In an instant, one can recognize a stark contrast between the brightly lit foreground and the dark sky and background. This is rather interesting not only because of its ability to draw the viewer’s attention, but because it gives off a sense of impending danger. One can interpret this piece as an embodiment of the saying “calm before the storm”. In addition, the brightly lit shore that the subject is sitting on extends towards the middle of the piece. Coupled with the small, black body of water that the speaker sits in front of, the shore easily redirects the viewer’s attention to the dark storm ahead. Heade draws attention to the oncoming thunderstorm by having the rest of the background (the mountains and the sailboat) barely take up any space, emphasizing the severity of the storm and providing a nice sense of what lies ahead. It is also worth noting that the mountains on the horizon line begin to appear smaller before reaching a vanishing point near the far right side of the piece. The fading of the mountains could possibly symbolize how stressful times (represented by the storm) can bring forth uncertainty and a lack of confidence as to what will come after. An interesting choice on Heade’s part was the inclusion of a sailboat and a man rowing a canoe off in the distance. Both the sail and the rowing man’s shirt are white, a color typically associated with innocence. This could potentially symbolize how some can be blissfully unaware of what lies ahead and the resulting struggles, once again symbolized by the storm. Alternatively, the contrast between the white objects and the black water might also symbolize optimism and a light shining in the dark. The subject of the piece, the man sitting on the shore, wears a red shirt and stands out against the water in front of him. Red is one of the best colors one can use for drawing attention, so the red shirt lets the viewer know that this man in particular is the subject of the whole piece. In addition, red is used to symbolize danger, so Heade could be trying to allude the belief that the unknown is dangerous. The man also wears a vest and a hat that is the same shade of beige as the shoreline he sits on, possibly symbolizing a desire to adhere to what he is familiar with, fearing the unknown. Despite being in the foreground and therefore closer to the viewer, the man also appears to be ridiculously small compared to the lake, possibly symbolizing nature’s dominance over man. Once again, this is further supported by the massive storm in the sky that appears to overwhelm the background and is slowly creeping towards the man.
Approaching Thunder Storm ties into Wilde’s statement because one can use the formal details of the piece to come up with a much deeper meaning than simply seeing a man sitting on a beach. The true theme of the piece revolves around two universal feelings that most people have experienced at least once in their lives: a fear of the unknown and “the calm before the storm”. Such interpretations exist not because of the subject of the piece but because of the way that Heade portray to create the world around said subject. While this piece is not a portrait, Heade applied his desire to depict the relationship between man and nature in a way that could be easily understood by others. Heade also depicted a scene that was both peaceful and tense at the same time, expressing natural human emotion through his work.
The second piece I would like to discuss is Thomas Cole’s oil on canvas painting called The Voyage of Life: Childhood (1842), which stands at 52” x 78” and is the first of a series of four paintings. The piece depicts a boat emerging from a cave to a bright and sunny surface teeming with plant life. This boat is holding a baby, about to emerge out into the world for the first time, with an angel protecting him. The dark, claustrophobic cave that dominates the left side of the painting provides a stark contrast to the rest of the painting’s rich, green, and bright environment. The cave likely represents how one does not remember life before birth. As a result, one cannot visualize it in any way and therefore cannot associate it with anything, hence the blank darkness. This darkness allows for the bright glow around the angel’s head to draw the viewer’s attention to the boat that the baby is being carried in. The contrast between the dark cave and the angel’s light could be referencing hopeful beginnings and the fact that the child depicted with the angel has their whole life ahead of them. In addition, the angel’s light and robe are both white, a color that represents innocence, possibly alluding to how the child is barely starting out life and can be considered innocent, having done no right or wrong yet. The idea of new beginnings is further supported by the clear sunrise that illuminates the piece’s environment. The expression “dawn of a new day” is often used to refer to a fresh start, so it makes perfect sense for Cole to include a sunrise in a scene with a character emerging from darkness. The lighter tint of blue in the sky could be associated with feelings of tranquility and peace, which one often experiences when going through a fresh start. The green of the plants surrounding the boat is frequently associated with tranquility as well. In addition, the bright green also provides lots of contrast with the darker, oppressive tones within the cave entrance. Green is also associated with nature and life, possibly evoking the sense that the baby in the boat is about to experience life and what it has to offer, which could potentially go in any direction. The notion of going in any direction is supported by the fact that we only see such a small portion of what could be a much larger body of water. This allows the viewer to imagine what could happen next and creates lots of room for interpretation.
The Voyage of Life: Childhood can easily apply to Wilde’s statement because Cole would repeatedly describe painting nature as his passion despite it causing to struggle to find buyers. People at the time were more interested in portraits, which Cole did not find as meaningful. He believed that landscape portraits could be great metaphors for moral and religious values. It is possible that the angel in the painting symbolizes Cole’s desire to use landscape paintings to convey God’s word, especially since the angel appears in all four pieces of Cole’s The Voyage of Life series. According to Cole, the entire series of paintings follows the same person as he goes through life before finally ascending into Heaven in the last piece, Old Age (1842). Cole takes full advantage of this fact to prioritize using the natural environment in order to convey his religious messages and tell each piece’s unique part of the series’ overall story.
Both Heade and Cole are major proponents of the idea of using nature to convey their own ideals and/or a deeper meaning through their work. As they have shown, an artist can use elements in an art work in order to essentially create a portrait of themselves and their beliefs, even if the piece itself is not a portrait per se. A piece does not have to depict a face to be a portrait, it could show anything as long as it reflects its creator’s true feelings about the religion, human emotion, or just the world as a whole, causing said piece to be more than meets the eye.
Mona Hamraee
Professor Tracy
Art 474 – 1001
20 March 2021
First Opinion/Position Paper
“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891).
I agree with Oscar Wilde and I believe this could be also about a landscape with all its features. In my opinion, an artist makes what they see and they choose what the sensation of the piece is. On the off chance that an artist is painting a portrait, the sitter might be showing a specific feeling or feeling into their posture, yet the artist can decipher that present in any capacity they feel.
In this writing, I will be investigating Thomas Cole’ painting called The Voyage of Life: Childhood. Cole had various commissions in the last part of the 1820s to paint his acclaimed perspectives on American Landscapes. However, with his aspiration to paint a “higher style of landscape” to impart his convictions and qualities, Cole started painting huge symbolic works, for example, the five-material arrangement Course of Empire. Cole kept on painting American landscapes during the 1830s and 1840s, yet quite a bit of his energy was centered around making complex nonexistent works, including Departure and Return and The Voyage of Life.
Thomas Cole strongly believed that landscape paintings could give spiritual and strict or religious qualities. Despite the fact that he made extensive progress from his clear portrayals of American view, his more prominent aspiration was to pass on the expression of God through landscapes. As Louis Noble, Thomas Cole’s spiritual advisor and mentor said: “…he wished his canvases at the same moment to speak a language eloquent of God and man, and human life.”
In The Voyage of Life, Cole made a few transformations to make his good and strict messages all the more clear. Rather than the Course of Empire’s stupendous, all encompassing scenes of nature and engineering, flush with subtleties and occurrences, Cole painted The Voyage of Life in a worked on style. He centered his story by painting the unfurling life of one man, instead of the convoluted ascent and fall of a nation. To additional his translation of the arrangement’s representative symbolism, Cole composed illustrative writings to go with each painting. The writings adequately filled in as a perusing ally for the viewers.
The Voyage of Life follows a pioneer’s excursion along the “River of Life.” In “childhood” a brilliant boat rises out of an obscured cavern—a baffling natural source—from which a blissful infant contacts the world with amazement and naivete. Rose light washes the location of fertile beauty as a heavenly figure manages the boat forward.
In “Youth,” the explorer unquestionably accepts control in charge of the boat. Careless in regards to the expanding disturbance and sudden bits of the stream, the traveler intensely endeavors to arrive at an elevated stronghold, meaningful of juvenile desire for notoriety and greatness.
Nature’s fierceness, insidious evil presences, and self-question compromise the voyager in the following work of art, “Manhood.” As Cole said, “The helm of the boat is gone”; the voyager has failed to keep a grip on his life. The holy messenger peers down from the mists as he is spun toward savage rapids and exposed, broke rocks. Just help from above, Cole proposes, can save the voyager from a shocking destiny.
In the arrangement’s last painting, “Old Age,” the stream of life has arrived at the expanse of endlessness where the voyager glides on board his messed up, endured vessel. All indications of nature and “bodily presence” are thrown away. The divine messenger, whom he sees interestingly, coordinates his look toward a calling, delicate light arising out of the splitting mists—the vision of everlasting life.
From the guiltlessness of childhood to the flush of young certainty, through the preliminaries of middle age lastly, to divine salvation, the Voyage of Life inspires the Christian principle of death and revival. Cole’s bold explorer can likewise be deciphered as an embodiment of America—a country at its own young adult phase of advancement.
In conclusion, a snapshot of complete joy never happens in the formation of a masterpiece. The guarantee of it is felt in the demonstration of creation however vanishes towards the finish of the work. For it is then that the painter understands that it is just an image he is painting. Up to that point he had nearly set out to trust that the image may spring to life. Were it not for this, the ideal work of art may be painted, on the fulfillment of which the painter could resign. It is this extraordinary inadequacy that drives him on. Along these lines, the interaction of creation gets important to the painter maybe more than is the image. The interaction, indeed, is propensity framing.
Rylee Jones
ART 474 1001 & ART 472 1001
Robert Tracy
25 March 2021
If we were asked to recall a person that we love, our mind does not immediately go to what they wear or the shape of their body or more often than not, we don’t even think of what they look like altogether. When we recall a person that we love, we think of all the ways in which they became that way. We think of their quirky laugh that fills a room, the favorite memory we have with them when we were young, their favorite foods and what they’d turn their nose up at and all of the little ins and outs of their personality that truly represents their place in our lives. It’s hard to say that you really know a person or can know a person based solely on what they look like, which I believe to be one of the biggest flaws and misconceptions in portraiture. When I think of portrait art, I find that more often than not that it is a little lackluster for me in particular if not done correctly because it is missing just that; the personality of its people.
As an artist myself, drawing the human figure was something that they attempted to teach us in grade school, I practiced in high school, and it is something that I continue to see so commonly fill the sketchbooks of my fellow artists here at university. However, it is very rare that I come across a portrait that really strikes me as a personal piece. I have seen many beautiful portraits that I am sure were very personable to the artist, don’t get me wrong, but finding one that is able to convey in me that same connection to the subject that they might have had with the artist is a very different experience in and of itself. I can look all day at the graying hair on a painting of an artist’s mother or the blue eyes of their first lover, but if the piece is simply done in the matter of just looks, then it is as good to me as being just another well done piece of an otherwise stranger passing by. When I look at art, I want it to resonate with me and bring out a part of me onto the canvas; I am not interested in just another face on the wall. As English nobleman, Lord Chesterfield, puts it best in a letter dated from 1747, “[portraits] do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.”
Now as commonly as it has been for me to come across portraiture work that is missing that crucial element of personality, there is also much to say about the many artist’s work that have left me in awe over how seemingly effortlessly they are able to portray character and emotion in the people they make their subjects, and I have been so lucky as to have experienced a few of them within this class. For instance, William Sydney Mount, a genre painter from the 1800s that well represented American luminicsm, does very well in terms of allowing his audience a glimpse into the life of his subject. In his piece, The Bone Player (1856) we see an African American man in standard clothing of the time holding his instrument and almost portrayed in the fashion as if he were in mid song. Not only is the painting mastered well by means of aesthetics and the quality of the painting itself by showing a bright red-orange bow tie and a worn out hat all in rich colors, it is even more notable how he depicts his subject’s emotions and love for their own art through use of action. We see immediately how Mount chooses to accompany his subject with his instrument, allowing us some insight into the techniques of this bone player as well as what the practice may look like to someone who has never seen it before. This allows room for movement in the piece through the subjects hands that in return, creates more interest and engagement from the audience.
Typically in a portrait, we would most likely see the subject sitting stoically towards the painter, with little to no emotion on their face. Here it is nice to see a change of pace in how Mount would portray a little more personality by incorporating the subject’s instrument. We also can see how Mount incorporates more emotion into the piece in the way he paints his subject’s facial expression of a slightly opened mouth almost as if to show his concentration in his craft or as if he were mid sentence which almost comes across as a snapshot into the life of the bone player and is portrayed as very candid.
I think that I particularly enjoy Mount’s piece because he went beyond focusing on making sure the painting resembled his subject. Instead, he goes even further as to just as successfully making sure that his work resembles his character’s personality and history of what he does. Another really great example of this would also be that of Gilbert Stuart’s portrait painting, Mrs. Richard Yates (1793-94). In this painting, an older woman is depicted sewing in a chair as if to gaze upon the artist painting her and is again, dressed in garb that would be fitting for her time period. The color choice here feels very welcoming and almost like home in a way through Stuart’s use of warm colors, clearly displaying his mastery as a colorist, paying special attention to the tones and creating an ambiance fitting of his subject. However, I think he best represents this homey feeling in showing the emotion behind her eyes. It’s almost as if you can see the history and the stories that are stored behind the slightly drooped, tired lids and gleaming eyes of the woman; they are soft but still stern almost like a mother or grandmother. You can see how much she has truly experienced in her lifetime as not only a woman of her age, but as a woman in general. There is no doubt that the woman of her time experienced much in the ways of less-than treatment as well as all of the duties that came with running a household. I feel as though Stuart does a more than impressive job at portraying all of those feelings and emotions wrapped up in a little bow prominently by the ways in which he chooses to express his subject’s emotions behind these eyes. Stuart has such a way of depicting purposeful facial expressions and it is clear here just how well he has mastered it.
There is also something to say about Stuart’s attention to detail in Mrs. Richard’s practice as well, very similar to that of Mount’s, The Bone Player. Particularly, when viewing the woman’s tension in her hands as she holds her needle and thread, it comes across as very purposeful and deliberate as if this is a practice that she has been doing for the majority of her lifetime or very second nature to her. Although seemingly minuscule in importance, through this simple detail of the hand, we as the audience can easily get the idea that Mrs. Richard’s is obviously skilled and has many years of practice under her belt in what she does, whether that be sewing or serving as more of a representation of a deeper strength within her such as running the household as a woman. Overall this choice that Stuart makes in his subject allows for coming across and taking in this piece of work all the more interesting and engaging for the viewer.
When looking at a portrait, as I said, I want to see the same level of love and intention put into the work as if they were recalling their loved ones. I believe that overall it makes the work feel special, well rounded and actually thought out for the subject in question. If we choose to paint anyone, we as artists owe it to them and to ourselves to represent people the way they were intended. As people, we are more than just our looks and the outlines of our bodies, but we are made up of moments and laughs and memories and favorite colors and first times and lasts. We embody beliefs and religions, mantras and motivational speeches, and we are far more complex than just the clothes on our backs. When an artist starts seeing their subject as an already living piece of art to study and not just a collection of pretty faces and bodies, I think that’s truly when they’ve hit the nail on the head and can begin creating a piece of portraiture that is well deserving of a person’s entire lifetime sketched out onto a single canvas.
Jazmin Navarro
Robert Tracy
ART 674-1001
25 March 2021
Who are the people in our lives really?
The people who we interact with have an influences on us; even if just a small one. Artists have an especially great talent and eye for understanding the people in their lives and interpreting their personalities into portraits. Whether some of those thoughts and interpretations are negative or positive entirely depends on the artists own ideas and this can also be true of self portraits. That is why I agree with the thought that “One is never satisfied with the portrait of a person one knows.” (Johann Wolfgang van Goethe, Elective Affinities, 1808). This thought that Wolfgang presents can be seen in: Charles Wilson Peale’s Lamplight Portrait, John Singer Sargent Madame X, and in various other artist medium to date.
Charles Wilson Peale was a painter, naturalist, soldier, and entrepreneur. In his paintings he often did portraits but also had a large interest in museums, science, and some landscapes. In Peale’s Lamplight Portrait of his brother James one can begin to see a huge jump in skill and effort as compared to his past portraits. One may say that some of the improvement came from practice and learning new skill; however, there is more than just an improvement of skill that has happened from his stale past portrait of George Washington. In the portrait of his brother there is a sense of a personality, a sense of a personal moment that is being had. A kind of moment that may not have been had if the subject is not comfortable with an artist. There is variety in this portrait; variety in lighting, variety in shadows, variety in textures, and even variety of emotions that are evoked. The half smirk half grimace that James has creates a somewhat private emotion which is somewhat contradicted with the lighting that is being cast on the scene. This evolved expression of emotions and textures in such a simple scene is further proof that portraits of those people in ones personal lives make much more of an impact on artist and their work than even some idols. In the portrait of George Washington (in contrast to that of James) there are still shadows and textures that can be seen but they are somewhat flat similar the emotions that are portrayed in this portrait; both figures (Washington, and the man in the foreground) have singular emotions from their smiles to their eyes. All of this to say that Peale’s work supports the statement that an artists will never be happy with works of people they know; artists will continue to work in order to show the audience everything they want to tell about the patron.
John Singer Sargent, the painter of the Madame X portrait, once said “Every time I paint a portrait, I lose a friend.”. The price of painting a portrait of someone that one already knows is, in Sargent’s opinion, the loss of that person and the inability to paint them perfectly; the inability to capture all the details of that person and their personality, no matter how much time is spent in trying to get it right. For his Madame X portrait that took over a year to complete he got to know Madame Gautreau more personally and I think that may have been part of the reason that he chose to start over on the portrait. Realizing some of the flaws that he had made along the way combined with the new perceptions led to the final portrait that we know as Madame X. The portrait is acknowledged for its elegance and refinement. The model, her husband , and the Parisian society all had very strong reactions of shock from the portrait; however, there were also some strong negative reactions from other people. Sargent captured quite a lot in his portrait that others were not able to in similar portraits of Madame Gautreau.
In addition to artists not being satisfied with portraits of those people in their lives there are also other art mediums that have the same effect; music is the first example that comes to mind. There are many albums that are not released for years or even decades that are written about a friend, lover, or even written about the artist themselves. Many times the trigger for the release of a certain song or album is the death of either the muse or of the artist themselves; however, sometimes it can be a symbolic closing of a chapter that leads to the release of the artists music. Other forms of art also have this phenomenon but, it is most prevalent in music, in my opinion, because of how large the music industry is and the vast amount of money that can be made from the release.
In the portraits that we have studied thus far in the semester we have seen how the thought “One is never satisfied with the portrait of a person one knows.” (Johann Wolfgang van Goethe, Elective Affinities, 1808) can be very true. The portraits: Lamplight Portrait and Madame X by Charles Wilson Peale and John Singer Sargent respectively both illustrate this point effectively. There are also many modern day examples that illustrate that this can be true of not only portraits but also of other media such as music and that it can be true of ones self as well (as we ourselves are people the we know).
Haley Hitchcock
Professor Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001
25 March 2021
Oscar Wilde remarked that “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” This thought intrigued me, for I have never been a good portrait artist myself so I do not know first hand the experience of capturing someone else in art. I understand the underlying meaning of the sentence, though. Art is all shifted through different perspectives, including the artists and the viewers. To capture something in paint or charcoal is only the reflection of how you perceive the world. How the artist views the sitter and chooses to portray them in the two-dimensional space is all subjective. While the artist attempts to capture the physical essence of the sitter, the expression of the painter always dominates the piece.
This quote from Oscar Wilde made me reflect upon Alice Neel’s work, specifically her piece “Pregnant Julie and Algis.” This piece from 1967 is a portrait that features two figures lying upon what looks to be a blanketed surface. The figures are laying next to each other, one arm around each other with the masculine looking figure sitting upright and his left arm draped around the feminime figure. Her right arm is lifted up, clutching onto the arm of the man. We are observing them from the side and slightly above, their feet pointing to the left. The masculine figure is fully clothed from head to toe while the feminime figure is completely naked. There is a very light beige blank wall that surrounds them and only the patterned blanket to ground them.
This artwork, in the simplest terms, is of a heterosexual couple lounging about in what appears to be a bedroom. If you approach anyone and ask them to imagine what that sentence would look like, everyone would interpret it differently and visualize the scene individually to themselves. Alice Neel’s choice in evoking her personal feelings into this simple concept was to provide a rawness into the scene. The woman is lounging naked, her left leg straight out, but her right knee bent, exposing her genitalia to the viewer. Her pregnant stomach is pronounced and her breasts are exposed, leaving her bare. Typically, naked women are captured in art in sensual poses or situations, but she is comfortable and relaxed, not positioning herself to satisfy or please anyone else. Her expression is calm, but somewhat annoyed, as if the viewer was disturbing her peace and quiet, or that she dared you to say anything to her. Neel has remarked about sex and gender not being a crucial part of her studio, which is evident in the choice to present Julie as naked and exposed, but not vulnerable. She normalizes this view of naked pregnant women that some might not even experience in real life. The focus is also on the woman, as she is in front of Algis, who lays relaxed and stoic against the wall. He has a neutral expression that is slightly covered up by the head of the woman. His legs are crossed and his black sock-covered feet are pointed out. His presence does not dominate the subject, but feels as a support behind Julie.
Neel also uses her style to put her own portrait within the scene. She captures the people in the image with a cartoon and caricature style. There is light detail like the depth of browns in Julie’s hair and shading of Algis’ facial structure, as well as the pattern of the blanket that allows you to emphasize with the subjects. It is realistic in its nature to grab hold of the viewer enough for slight shock value, but with a soft illustration style that gives you a more personal tone. This painting feels intimate, not only because of the figures but also because it feels like a friend drew this. This looks like it was painted by someone who is familiar with Julie and Algis and really captured her interpretation of their souls. I can see the personality within the faces that could only be caricatured by someone with love. Neel’s works feel somehow familiar and friendly, letting you comfortably take in her work. It is easy to digest and understand, thanks to her more muted color palette of browns, whites, and blacks. The only vivid color being the blanket, but even that is comforting because it is enveloping the couple.
Neel remarks that painting for her was like therapy because she “told it as it was,” and that it “takes a lot of courage in life to tell it how it is.” Her honest nature and views of the world definitely reflects in her paintings. She includes details that might not be generally regarded as beautiful or worthwhile, such as bringing to life some parts of pregnancy that aren’t usually discussed. This truthful portrait is exactly what Neel sees and witnesses, and it’s great that we can see from her perspective.
To capture a human within a two-dimensional work is difficult and often takes years of practice to master. The art of portrait has fallen over the decades, but it still remains a highly respected art. For an artist to capture the human emotion and feeling within art is very difficult and often comes with a different direction than what the sitter intended. Alice Neel manages to paint her portrait and perception of herself and her life within her works. Her honest and up close views of women show how she views others and herself.
Alexandra Moctezuma
ART 474 sec 1001
17 March 2021
Opinion Paper 1
The Beauty Behind Portraiture
The study of the creation of portrait paintings created throughout history by some of the world’s most gifted artists is one that should never be exhausted. Portraits, aside from providing us with a product of great precision and talent, can also provide us with a greater look and perhaps even understanding of those they are depicting. Artists, when they truly love and understand their craft, can do more with portraits of their sitters than just present them in the most appealing way. The deeper aspect of portraiture can be succinctly summarized by the following quote by Lord Chesterfield: “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man” (in a letter dated 1747). It is with statements like these that we can gain a much greater appreciation for the portraiture craft, much of which was created long before our time.
To better understand what is meant by portraits that present “the inside of the heart and mind of man,” it is best to delve into the work of a specific artist and how it is that personal style can contribute to this characteristic of portraiture. In this case, American artist Thomas Eakins (1844-1916) is a great example of an artist that created his pieces with extreme levels of depth and detail. Belonging to the realism and impressionism movements, Eakins has long been considered one of the greatest American painters in history. His pieces range from portraits to landscapes and scenes of life, all which demonstrate the level of mastery Eakins possessed as an artist. In his pieces of patrons, however, the viewer can notice certain details of his sitters that many would easily disregard. It is these smallest of details that bring the piece together and allow the viewer to feel as if they know and understand what the sitter could have been feeling, thinking, etc., in that very moment.
The first piece to take a closer look at is Portrait of Mary Adeline Williams, 1899. Miss Williams was a very close friend of Eakins and his family, and a repeat sitter for Eakins during his career. This specific portrait of Williams was the first of two created in consecutive years, depicting her in a very serious manner. Compositionally, it is a very simple piece: she sits, turned slightly to the right, dressed very modestly in a black dress with a high white collar, with a soft shadow cast across half of her face. The background is also very simple, allowing the viewer’s full attention to be given to Williams herself. At first glance, it looks like nothing more than an exceptionally well down portrait, but upon further look, the viewer can begin to notice the details Eakins made sure to include that would possibly let the reader into the mind of Williams. For one, he included an extreme level of detail in her facial features, which in a portrait piece can really define the piece as a whole. He painted her with her pursed lips, undereye circles, and slightly furrowed brow, all things that another portraiture artist might easily disregard in order to have the sitter appear livelier and aesthetically pleasing. Eakins, however, made these characteristics the center focus of the piece in the best way possible. As part of the audience, one might feel that they understand or relate to what could have caused Williams to have such an expression at the time of her portrait. Aside from the attention that way given to the facial expression, Eakins also gave her dress a great preciseness that, in realism, can add to the connection a viewer has with a piece given that they can imagine what it would be like to feel the piece of fabric itself.
Another great, and perhaps unconventional, example of Eakins’ amazing talent for portraiture is his own 1902 Self-portrait. It is an interesting concept for artists to create a self-portrait given that they could choose to depict themselves in any way they choose. Eakins kept it very simple and straightforward, with a plain background and a classic pose. He sits facing the viewer directly, dressed in a three-piece suit, but just like the Williams piece, the detail is in his facial expression. Again, Eakins did not shy away from leaving in what other artists might consider imperfections that may be easily corrected. From his ruffled hair to his own undereye circles, looking at his slightly furrowed brow and borderline smirk, the viewer almost gets a sense of what Eakins might say in the moment he was captured. He seems indifferent at first glance, but upon looking closer at his eyes, more can be interpreted. In a way, it almost seems as if Eakins is attempting to hold the viewer’s eye contact in an effort to transmit a certain thought or message solely through a glance.
Returning to the quote that summarizes this great element of portraiture, with these two examples, Eakins demonstrates the way he really did use his skills to allow the viewer “inside the heart and mind of man.” Eakins focused on adding the most detail to the sitter’s face, including his own, which itself can be considered a great feat. Despite his paintings being very simple in both composition and content, the way that he used all of his abilities to ensure that the facial expressions captured as much of what the sitter’s person is like beyond the surface is what is truly impressive. The quote by Lord Chesterfield not only accurately defines what Eakins was able to do with his portraiture work, it also describes what a lot of great artists can do with their portrait work that contribute to the beauty of portrait work as a whole. This type of art is one that should always be appreciated, and when the viewer can get more than just the surface level appearance of the sitter, the better the connection that can be formed with the piece of art and its subject.
Jasmine Pashley
Professor Robert Tracy
***ART 474/ART 472***
25 March 2021
Whistler The White Girl: Symphony in White #1
James Abbott McNeil Whistler was a map maker, cartographer, an artist of the American Renaissance, and creator to piece The White Girl: Symphony in White #1. Since Whistler was no stranger in trying out new things, this painting proved to be an experiment of color (or lack of) for the focal point, meaning it serves a greater purpose to Whistler than the subject shown. This ties in with the quote, “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). At first glance, the painting just seems to be simple, of a young maiden looking at the viewer, but if looked at closely there may be a few more surprising imagery that Whistler added purposefully. To reiterate Oscar Wilde’s quote, this piece was more for Whistler than the subject (sitter).
At first glance, one immediately sees a young girl in a white dress. It is said that the model is of Whistler’s mistress Joanna Heffernan. Her hair and eyebrows are of a ginger color, her lips being just a shade lighter. These colors stand out the most for the top part of the painting as it contrasts greatly. Her eyes are of a light blue, the brightest part of the maiden’s features though very hard to see from afar. Her expression is one that is neutral or perhaps a little somber; it seems the mouth is downturned just the tiniest bit. It is hard to tell what she may be thinking while patiently waiting to be painted, but that was not too important to Whistler. This is a piece of experimentation not narrative, so the purpose is fulfilled and made clear.
The dress, although white, is certainly one of the first things the viewer will see as it takes up most of the canvas. The collar is rounded and a murky-gray color. The puff on the shoulders and the sleeves have shadows of the same color as the collar; this begins a trend with the rest of the dress. A ribbon tied in a bow cinches the waist of the woman leaving the rest of the cloth to drape more naturally over her figure. The main component of the dress is of an ivory color compared to the sleeves and the color which are a shade darker to establish their shapes. There are some folds in the chest part of the dress, some intentional wrinkles, but not underneath where the bow cinches the waist. The wrinkles on the chest can be seen on the sleeves as well since it follows the same style. The most interesting part of this dress is that it is against a white background even though it is white itself. The flower that the woman holds in her left hand also appears to be a white lily and is almost easy to miss if it were not for the green of the stem. As stated earlier, this is a piece of experimentation for Whistler, one of what white on white would look like and if it is just as impactful.
The white curtain is very peculiar indeed. Upon closer look there seems to be a floral pattern. When looking at the pattern from afar, it is a little hard to distinguish each flower. When looking at it up close, it is easier to make out the flowers yet it is still a little abstract when it comes to their borders. The shapes are distinguishable by the same murky-gray of the collar and sleeves. Whistler does an excellent job when it comes to folds in cloth. The curtains overlap themselves a little bit when they could have just been easily straightened out to make it less difficult to paint. On the right side of the curtain, there is a kind of shine on it making the curtain gleam on a certain fold. It is very enriching since it might be the light of coming through a covered window from behind as this light source. The beam of light is easy to miss when still viewing up closely, so this part is one where you need to take a step back to see.
Continuing down the painting, it almost startled me since I was looking at it up close; there is the face of a former being, the pelt of a wolf. I did not see the face immediately as I was focused on the woman, so this was a surprise. The wolf’s face seems to still be full of life; the eyes are wide open and the mouth shows all of its fangs as if it were a warning to back off. It is almost uncanny since its eyes pierce through the audience and fills me with a sense of helplessness the wolf seems to have. The body and limbs are laid out flat as if it were under a steam roller. With each visible brush stroke of Whistler, he is able to capture how fluffy the pelt still is even though it might have been trampled by human feet dozens of times. Another unsettling part is how the woman stands calmly on top of the pelt seemingly graceful while the lifeless wolf is still portrayed to be a frightening beast. She seems so relaxed as I could never be comfortable enough to even own taxidermy.
Underneath the wolf, there is a tan rug with a blue pattern. From afar, you can see blue flowers in the rug with green stems, but looks abstract up close. It is best seen as a whole, since the brush strokes can be individually seen upon closer inspection. The rug may not even be a rug since the flower pattern seems to be geometric. It could be a woven mat where it was not made of cloth but perhaps more like a bamboo sheet tied together. This was most likely from another country. It is interesting that there is a rug underneath the wolf pelt “rug” since why would someone need two of them? The answer is that both of these rugs must have been a sign of wealth, or at least being very well off. A wolf pelt that had to be cleaned and have the head stuffed probably cost a hefty sum. The rug seems to be of a unique pattern, probably had to be imported, must have cost quite a bit too. I find it also ironic for the poor wolf to be laid upon the “flower bed” of a rug as it would probably remain there for years.
There also appear to be more flowers on top of the wolf and the tan rug. They seem to be of a variety and are easier to see when more closely to the painting. The flowers are lain where the stems are all facing the right. I wonder why they were put there? It may have been that Whistler wanted more pops of color to contrast with the white curtain and dress and only one of the flowers (a hyacinth?) is white.
Even though this piece is more of an experiment according to Whistler, it appears that there are a lot of floral significations, and as you may know flowers have a lot of meaning; their own language. The first flower we can barely see is the one the woman is holding. It is a white lily which signifies purity and innocence. The color of the flower may reflect the woman and the environment in which she is innocent through the color of the dress and curtain. It makes it ironic as a pure maiden stands atop a ferocious animal. If I didn’t know better, I would have thought this was Little Red Riding Hood with the Wolf since a ginger-haired girl is on top of a slain wolf! There are also flowers on the white curtain that can only be seen when light shines on it at certain angles. The flowers on bottom may have meaning as well, but since there is a variety, I’m still convinced it was only for contrast. The blue flowers of the tan rug may symbolize peace and tranquility as that is their meaning in the flower world and in which the wolf rests. Even if it was unintentional, there were too many flowers to deny a potential meaning.
Emily Fischer
ART 474 1001
25 March 2021
Opinion Paper #1
(Mary Cassatt, In the Box, 1879)
“By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (English nobleman Lord Chesterfield, in a letter dated 1747)
Born in Allegheny City, Pennsylvania in 1844, Mary Cassatt was an American painter and feminist who faced discrimination in the art world for being a woman. Known as a collector and a portraitist, she was often restricted from exhibiting her own work freely, and unlike the male artists of her time, the subjects of her work usually had to depict “homemaker” environments to be widely accepted. Things like mothers at home, scenes of the house… with nary a portrait made of any person that was not a fellow woman at home. To hone her skills and harness her power, Cassatt depicted women at home reading or socializing or attending theater, all of which spoke to her desire to show the world that the women in her society were learning, were educated, and were of equal standing despite what the restrictions upon her and others like her said. One such piece to showcase this was In the Box (1879), an oil-on-canvas work that depicted a pair of women at the theater.
As aforementioned, women attending theater was one such subject Cassatt highlighted because it was real, it was happening—she and women like her were not bound to the home, and did not have to be. At the time, however, leaning away from domesticity was most often regulated to excursions to the theater for Cassatt, but it did not make the feeling any less real. I feel that part of the power in her paintings of the theater is depicting only women, which is the case for In the Box as well.
From the range of orange-reds to ochres that define the theater and the objects related to it, to the pale oranges and whites of the women’s skin and outfits, In the Box is a visual buffet of beautiful brushwork. Composited on the right side of the piece, two women painted at the bust sit in an opera box and observe the events of the theater “off-camera,” with one of the women looking left with a pair of opera glasses. The women’s forms—their heads, necks, shoulders, and arms that are visible—are rendered and painted in believable ways, but things like the opera glasses and the fan one woman holds and the flower in one of the woman’s hair or their dresses were clearly painted with Impressionist techniques. The viewer relies on the impression of the objects made with particular strokes and colors to tell what they are, so even without any sort of rendering or definition on the opera glasses, I could tell from the woman’s posture and context clues that she is indeed holding opera glasses. Similarly, the background (most of the left side of the painting) is also a result of Impressionist technique. The auburn coloring implies where each level of the audience’s boxes are established, each with a slight curve to indicate the roundness of the auditorium. Within these defined rectangles there are strokes of layered colors—the ochres, some browns, near-blacks, and some of the brighter pale oranges from the women appear too—all providing the impression of people in the theater, without Cassatt having to detail each person. It’s things like that that make Impressionism and Impressionist techniques so fascinating to me, and really speaks of Cassatt’s skill in portraying things she is familiar with and enjoys.
I speak confidently of Impressionism in this piece because Cassatt learned from an Impressionist, a man named Edgar Degas. He was a French Impressionist painter who Cassatt learned from; looking between her artwork and Degas’s, the influence is prevalent but each artist remains distinct. Where Degas adds some style in his portraits, Cassatt leans into naturalism, though all of Cassatt’s environments absolutely ooze character. She was comfortable in the Parisian Impressionist sphere where her work was respected and she was able to flourish through her art—she took Impressionism and ran with it!
Cassatt’s artworks, such as In the Box, are windows into society as a whole but especially Cassatt’s. Although iconic for her domestic pieces (The Bath (1893) for example), Cassatt shows that despite all the expectations laid out for her, she steps beyond. To paint women in each scene as she does is to see women, to see their lives and show those that choose not to see what is plainly in front of them, what is real. Cassatt’s work, as Lord Chesterfield wrote in his letter in 1747, outline “the inside of the heart and mind of man.”
Jessica Meeks
Art 474- History of American Art
Opinion Paper #1: first writing assignment
March 14, 2021
“Overall, Rocks, wood and water, brooded the spirit of repose, and the silent energy of nature stirred the soul to its innermost depths.” (Thomas Cole)
The paintings I chose to review are by Thomas Cole and his Course of Empire series of five paintings. I thought it was appropriate to review them as a whole piece of work because the individual painting is not as strong as the whole series together.
The titles of each of the paintings in order are “Savage state (top right), Pastoral State (top left), Consummation (middle), Destruction (bottom right), and Desolation(bottom left)” all created in 1836. This series is a beautiful recreation of the fall of civilization and a representation of how life will always find a way to survive. This series represented landscape painting at this time period and while landscape paintings were a new ideal and weren’t as well represented; they still are remarkable that almost 200 years later they still reminisce current themes in today’s society. The plot line of the paintings represent the earth being bright and lush and green “savage state” almost referring to the earth still being wild and untamed and undiscovered. The painting shows the land being green and almost untouched by humanity and its consequences.
The second painting on the top left is called “Pastoral State” and represents the land and nature coexisting peacefully with one another and humanity gives to the land and the land gives back to humanity in a symbiotic relationship. The scene is painted peacefully and the colors in this painting are a little more tame and muted compared to the wild and darker colors of the first painting. The second painting represents a time period where man and nature could coexist peacefully and not destroy one or another.
The third painting in the middle called “Consummation” represents humanity taking over nature and humans representing greed and lustfulness and over consumption of resources. This painting depicts the fancy lifestyles of the people and the lavish materialistic qualities of that time period. The colors are more bright and reminiscent of royalty using reds and purples and blues to signify a sense of status and luxury. Almost no nature is visible in this picture and it appears humanity has taken over the frame. This picture depicts the beginning of the downfall of man due to our greedy and materialistic ways. Earth has become unsustainable due to the lifestyle and overconsumption of man.
The fourth picture called “Destruction” represents humanity at war and the consequences dire for civilizations to survive. The use of deeper reds and violence show a dark tone and theme even from the first painting. The difference between the first and the fourth painting can be the overall themes but the color schemes are significant as well. The first painting had a theme of mystery and awe to it whereas the fourth painting are themes that represent a portion of human kind that is familiar and represents a piece of humanity itself. There is no being in history that has never known war and this painting represents the moment when we have lost. There is still no presence in nature and the scene is taken over by violence and death and killing; but just as with any death there is a balance and this leads to the fifth and final painting in the series.
The fifth painting called “Desolation” shows complete destruction and loss of humanity. This painting is almost reminiscent of the first except the first there was no sign that civilizations of humanity had ever existed whereas the fifth painting shows humanity in ruins and the remains are dying and decaying. Nature starts to reemerge into the scene and the greenery of moss and the water overtakes humanity again in a solemn but peaceful quality. There is still the presence of remains of humans but mostly overtaken by the land again.
This series really inspired me as a landscape photographer as well as a conservation photographer. Even 200 years ago the idea that humanity will always fall to nature and nature will always rebuild itself in ways that we can never fathom almost brought me to tears. One could look at this series as if it was painted today and it would still represent the problems humanity faces and the challenges of the balance of humans and earth coexisting together. This series represents a series of scales that can very easily be tipped if we are not careful. Earth itself will always exist and probably has existed without humanity for millions of years but humanity can only exist while the earth provides and this progression is inevitable in many stations of history and is as represented now as it was 200 years ago. Thomas Cole may be a fortune teller or maybe he is just a representation of the idea that if we cannot learn from ourselves we are bound to repeat our own mistakes.
As the beginning quote states, We as humanity have always been in awe of nature and the wild beauty of earth but we can be ignorant and sometimes we need to be awakened again to the deepest parts of our soul to remember what it is we have lost.
An analysis of James Whistler’s Arrangement in Gray and Black No. 1
Katie Hoffman
Art 474 / Spring 2021
James Whistler’s Arrangement in Grey and Black No. 1, or Portrait of the Artist’s Mother, is the painting most commonly known as Whistler’s Mother. At first glance we see a stiff and seemingly formal older woman, wearing a full length black gown with lace cuffs and collar. The lappets of her lace bonnet rest on solid, confident shoulders effectively guiding the viewer’s eye down the arm to where Mother Whistler’s hands sit folded neatly in her lap, clutching a lace handkerchief. The bent knee of the seated woman stands out as an angular anomaly, dead center on a canvas that is otherwise dominated by rectilinear shapes accentuated by organic forms. The gaze of the woman is toward something outside of the left hand side of the picture plane, perhaps it is a vacant stare. Beneath her we see enough of a chair-form to know that the furniture is there, but the same confident articulation of detail is lacking from the bottom right portion of the painting.
Behind the woman a gray wall is decorated with a low band of dark wood or wainscotting, anchoring the piece approximately one-third of the way up from the bottom of the canvas. The space below this band is reserved for a patterned rug, while above it we see neatly arranged framed and matted prints or etchings. The left-most third of the canvas is dominated by a delicately patterned curtain which reaches almost to the floor and casts a gentle shadow. The overall composition is very orderly, and the given title suggests this scene is not a glimpse into the life of Anna Whistler, but rather a carefully orchestrated juxtaposition of objects, of which the artist’s Mother falls among.
In 1863, Poet Alexander Smith said in Dreamthorp, his first work of prose:
“To sit for one’s portrait is like being present at one’s own creation.” (Pg 258)
This romantic notion does not seem to apply to the Whistler composition, yet it does give one pause because in a sense, this painting was the genesis of something. The first point that might make Smith’s comment irrelevant though in this case, is the fact that the artist himself refutes that this is a portrait at all. In his own book The Gentle Art of Making Enemies (1890), Whistler states:
“Take the picture of my mother, exhibited at the Royal Academy as an “Arrangement in Grey and Black.” Now that is what it is. To me it is interesting as a picture of my mother; but what can or ought the public do to care about the identity of the portrait?” (Pg 128)
According to this view, Whistler would surely doubt that his asking his mother to sit for him would amount to her participating in her own creation. Rather, he insisted even the viewer of the painting had no business caring who was pictured – that identity of the figure was not the point. Whistler referred to this composition as an Arrangement for that reason.
The spirit of Alexander Smith’s quote remains intact however, because this painting undoubtedly connects the art world to this woman, the unwitting subject of a masterpiece. Whether she was ever aware of it, Anna McNeill Whistler transcended the role of being “only” Whistler’s mother, before this work was done – whereas after she became Whistler’s Mother. Anna Whistler became an archetype of motherhood, a connection that would not exist without her presence in the piece. It is questionable if another sitter would have led to a finished work so iconic as this. At this point one could take a healthy detour debating the popularity of Whistler’s Arrangement in Gray and Black No. 2 featuring Thomas Carlyle as the sitter, but it is sufficient to say that the second Arrangement comes nowhere near the first in terms of recognizability.
Although it seems this non-portrait is renowned for reasons defiant of the artist’s intent, James Whistler created a confident composition, which deftly exhibited his mastery of space and tone. He did achieve his original goal of a harmonious arrangement, where he seemingly substituted a model for the any-prop, using them as a filler of space and an absorber of light and little more. It is a coincidence to him that this model was his mother.
I am left wondering what Alexander Smith would have thought of Whistler’s Arrangement in Gray and Black No. 1. Would he view this as a portrait and as a fulfillment of his earlier quote? Or would he be able to take a view more akin to that of the artist himself, and accept that this isn’t a portrait and therefore immune to his framing. Either way, Arrangement…No 1 has achieved a life and meaning beyond what the artist or his mother could have imagined it would.
“One is never satisfied with the portrait of a person one knows.” (Johann Wolfgang van Goethe, Elective Affinities, 1808)
While all the quotes provided were thought provoking and deep, this quote in particular stood out to me as it seems to apply to more than just portraiture, but how humans tend to see themselves in general. This is important to me because I have chosen to provide an analysis of Thomas Cole’s series of paintings, The Course of Empire. Cole’s work immediately stood out to me from other colonial artists as it has a dramatically different tone and style to other American artist that were painting at the time. Cole would paint in a style of fictional realism or even in some cases surrealism and often did series of works that would tie together. To me, this seemed very different from the types of artwork that were being created at the time, usually portraiture or historical landscape scenes of important events. Cole seemed to be thinking in a completely different way than those of his time, tackling important issues such as mortality, or the trends of human behavior.
The first of the five paintings The Savage State, depicts a landscape painting of primitive man, their settlements and traditions. The painting takes place in the early morning, in the foreground you see a hunter pursuing a deer he has shot with an arrow through unkempt and thick brush across a river. In the middle ground you notice a larger group of hunters pursuing two additional deer with the help of dogs, as well as a settlement of tents surrounding a fire. In the background you can see the centerpiece for the series that will be visible in all five paintings, a large mountain crowned with a boulder visible at the peak shrouded by dark clouds that seem to be disappearing with the dawn of day. While the composition of this landscape seems general enough, it gives great detail to the state of evolution the humans in this painting currently reside. The clothes, weapons and housing of the humans of this painting are primitive. The hunters wear one continuous cloth to cover top and bottom and hunt with bows and dogs and bring their meals back to a small group of tee-pees. Around the fire in the center of the tents people appear to be partaking in some sort of ritual, implying a sense of informal religion that exists at the time. The landscape is wild, fairly unaltered by the small group of people currently inhabiting the space.
The second of the series The Arcadian State, is said to be the pinnacle of human evolution. In the foreground of the painting we see a man drawing in the dirt as well as a boy drawing a picture of a solider on a stone bridge. You also see a soldier walking up a path towards the boy and two groups of people on each side of the landscape. In the middle ground you notice a heard of sheep lead by a Shepard, a man on horseback and another man plowing a field with an oxen. Continuing into the middle ground is a small city with wooden houses along a river filled with small ships and atop the hill in the center of the painting, a large stone monolith with a fire in the middle surrounded by people. The painting is set around early morning, and in the background you see the same mountain and boulder depicted in the first painting slightly more left than before, implying this scene is slightly further down the river. The weather is calm and clear with slight clouds and fog that seem to be receding over the mountains in the distance. This painting depicts a slightly more advanced step in human evolution. The man in the foreground is drawing shapes in the sand, showing a rudimentary understanding of geometry and mathematics, the two groups of people are dressed in varying quality of clothes implying a class system, a soldier is showing walking up the path letting the viewer know these people have some form of military. Further into the panting we see agriculture, people harvesting the land and using animals for livestock and in the center a large monolith that seems to be religious in nature, possibly in the middle of a sacrifice to a god. The monolith is reminiscent of the teepees surrounding the fire in the first painting, both seeming to represent some sort of religious aspect of the society.
The third painting in the series, The Consummation of the Empire, shows the tipping point of human evolution. The small village of people has now grown into a massive city, in the foreground you see a large parade leading a king to a grand temple that takes up most of the painting. In the middle ground you notice hundreds of soldiers looking as though they have come back from a victorious battle and are celebrating their achievements. In the background you can see many other grand buildings and statues, implying the wealth and power this civilization has accrued. The same mountain and boulder are seen in the distance and the time is set on a sunny day around noon. At this point the civilization has reached its peak, the painting shows the grandiose wealth of the people but gives subtle hints of what’s to come. If you look in the foreground of the painting you notice two boys playing “war” in a fountain with ships. The boys appear to be fighting, each wearing their own uniform, one in red and one in green. It is thought that these two are meant to represent brothers, and the opposing uniforms are meant to symbolize an impending civil war.
The fourth painting, Destruction, shows the true cost of an empire and what becomes of it. The scene is set in the late afternoon, the sky is dark and stormy filled with smoke and the water shown is wild and roaring. A devastating siege is taking place and chaos is everywhere. Laid in the foreground are hundreds of bodies, dead women and children. Most prominent is a woman who has chosen to run off a ledge and take her own life rather than be captured by the enemy. As you move to the middle ground, a large statue is shown whose head has fallen to its feet, collapsing under the pressure of the siege. In the background buildings burn and people flee, but the mountain and the boulder remain as they always have. Destruction is set as a warning to an empire, to show society the true cost of domination and what it will lead to.
The fifth and final painting, Desolation, completes the cycle of the empire and draws the story to a close. The painting is set in evening and the moon is just starting to rise in the sky. The weather is calm, almost peaceful, as a set of storm clouds on the left side of the painting seem to be retreating in the distance. Nature has reclaimed the once massive city and animals and wildlife return to what was originally theirs. Most of the buildings have collapsed, but what is left is covered in moss and habitats for the animals in the area. One things remains constant, the mountain and boulder sit untouched, over the many years that the empire rose and fell they both remained in perfect harmony.
The five paintings in The Course of Empire series depict the rise and fall of a civilization, from the dawn of savages, to the consumption of an empire, and the return to nature. This series was created from 1833 – 1836, which seems very appropriate for the context of the United States during the time in which it was painted. America was a fairly new civilization slowly making its climb through the cycle, and I believe this series was the perfect warning from Cole to be aware and cautious of the fate that could plague this new empire. “One is never satisfied with the portrait of a person one knows.” Explaining the cycle described in this series to a government in the middle of it must have been difficult in Cole’s time, as it is very difficult of convincing someone of how they may act, especially if it is true. Cole’s thought process, creativity and execution of his vision is inspiring to me, and stood out in a league of its own amongst other colonial painters. His awareness of his surroundings and the situations he was living through are impressive, and all this talent is translated perfectly onto canvas.
Arron Adams
Art 474-1001
Portrait of Mrs. Nathaniel Ellery by John Singleton Copley
Mary and Elizabeth Royall by John Singleton Copley
“Doubtless portraiture is tantalizing art – no pleasing your sitters, hey. All wanting to be Venuses and Adonises, hey.” – Gorge III
“Doubtless portraiture is tantalizing art – no pleasing your sitters, hey. All wanting to be Venuses and Adonises, hey.” I think it is interesting that the word “tantalizing” was chosen here. Typically – although not always – the word “tantalizing” is used to refer to something that is tempting, but, ultimately, out of reach or unattainable. It seems to me that the implication here is that portraiture is something an artist can only really strive toward, but never quite properly achieve, never actually reach.
However, before looking further into why and how portraiture might be considered tantalizing, I want to examine the main subject of this quote: portraiture. Portraiture, in the context of this quote, is the branch of painting that is focused on creating paintings of the likenesses of individual people, i.e. creating a portrait. Now, a portrait can really be a painting of essentially any amount of a person: from a full body depiction of the entire person, to a close up shot of just the person’s face. However, I would argue – and I suspect that most would agree with me here – that the essential part, the most important aspect, of any portrait, is specifically the face of the subject of the portrait. Of all the features of the human form, the face is the most recognizable aspect of an individual person, and, as such, it is the most crucial part to depict correctly and accurately to the person whose portrait is being painted.
This would seem to be relatively straightforward, particularly when the subject is sitting (or standing, or lying, or what have you) in front of the painter waiting to have, and presumably wishing to have, their likeness painted. However, as anyone who has ever attempted to render an accurate likeness of a person, in any media, can attest: it is really not all that simple. The human form in general is fairly complicated, but, with the face in particular, all it really takes is a relatively small flaw in the rendering to completely throw off the entire likeness. There is even a term used to refer to when a likeness is almost, but not quite, correct: uncanny valley. But just the fact that there is a term for when the likeness of a human face is off would suggest that there are times when a likeness is not off, and, indeed, there are painters who have been able to capture accurate and recognizable likenesses of individual people. Copley, for example, was known to paint portraits of people that were (or are, I suppose one would say, as the paintings are still around) individualized and animated. There have been other painters as well who have managed this feat, thus, while it is certainly not easy, it is not quite entirely out of reach, as the term tantalizing might suggest.
The next part of the quote, however, seems to explain a different reason – one that is not about the mechanics, or technical aspect – for why portraiture might be considered tantalizing, but unreachable: “no pleasing your sitters, hey. All wanting to be Venuses and Adonises, hey.” This part of the quote immediately reminds me of the people on social media, among other places, asking other people – or even, in some cases, commissioning professional artists – to Photoshop, or otherwise manipulate, photos of their faces to make them look “more attractive:” remove lines, creases, blemishes, scars, freckles, and other facial “imperfections.” I think that it is this constant pursuit of perceived “perfection” that George III was referring to when he called portraiture tantalizing, and it seems clear that the idea is less about whether or not it is possible to accurately create a portrait of an individual person, but rather that it is impossible – or at least extremely difficult – to create a portrait that satisfies the person being painted: “no pleasing your sitters, hey.”
Now, with this in mind, it is easy to imagine that, when having their portrait painted, many people are not going to be happy if their portrait is an accurate likeness, and will request that alterations be made in the same way that people today want their photos manipulated. I can even imagine that there are some who would be actively offended at not being painted in a way that they deem to be perfect, a way that does not match up with their own perceptions of what they look like, and I feel like in some cases that offense could potentially actually harm the artist creating the painting. Consider, for a moment, who this quote is coming from: King George III of England. What sort of people would the King of England associate with, and what sort of people was he referring to in this quote? I think it is most likely that he primarily was associating with the English nobility, but really anyone who was relatively wealthy and/or influential could be the sort of person he was referring to, and I feel like this is potentially significant.
Think for a moment about an artist creating a portrait for someone who is fairly wealthy or influential, and the resulting painting ends up offending the patron in some way – however unreasonable the offense may be. Now, there could be any number of different outcomes to something like this happening, but consider what might happen if said influential patron decided to use their influence to cause harm to the artist’s reputation in some way. This quote is from the King of England, what might happen if he said he didn’t like the painting? Even if he was not necessarily trying to harm the artist’s reputation, if he just did not like some small part of the painting, it could easily cause the artist to lose many potential patrons. On the other hand, the praise of an influential person could – and I believe has in some cases throughout history – make a artists entire career. So, in this sense, it is easy to see why George III might call portraiture tantalizing; it could be that one single portrait might make or break an artist, and thus would be very tempting, but also potentially out of reach – at least for some.
One last thing I want to touch on, however, is this idea that there is no pleasing your sitters: “All wanting to be Venuses and Adonises, hey.” While I am certain that George III had a point – probably because he had met such people – and I think it still holds true today in many cases, I do not think it’s fair to assume this mentality of everyone. Going back to Copley, and his ability to paint individualized faces – faces with that spark of life in them – consider his Portrait of Mrs. Nathaniel Ellery. This is a painting which clearly shows the lines, creases, and subtle “imperfections” that shows it to be the face of an actual person. Or his portrait of Mary and Elizabeth Royall, which are not idealized, not painted from templates, not “Venuses.” These paintings are of real people, who were not so pretentious that they needed to be painted as anything other than who they actually were. So I feel that, although George III did have a point – and he likely spoke from experience – it is not entirely fair to say that everyone wants “to be Venuses and Adonises,” there are those who are content with being who they are, and there are those artists who are capable of painting portraits that show accurate likenesses of who they are.
My opinion will be made on John Singleton Copley’s Boy with a Squirrel (Henry Pelham) 1765. It is a 30 3/8’’ x 25 1/8’’ oil painting on canvas. This painting shows Henry Pelham, Copley’s half-brother. The subject is shown in a side profile, a trait that is uncommon for portraiture. Shown in the background is a red drape, framing the contrasting pale countenance of the sitter. He wears a dark frock coat, with a pink collar. Underneath the coat is a yellow vest and white vest. Directing the gaze downward, we follow his right arm, which leads to his hand. In his hand he holds a gold chain, which continues to lead the gaze towards a flying squirrel, a pet squirrel. John Singleton Copley’s Boy with a Squirrel displayed his maturity as a self-taught artist. Having been born in Boston, he grew up around a home filled with paintings and engravings, all created by his step-father Pelham, His situation in Boston made him exclusively a portrait artist, as it was the only kind of painting up in the market at the time. Copley was self-taught in that he based his compositions on the engravings he used to see at home. He was soon the most sought out portrait artist in Boston. But Copley wanted to be more than just a portrait artist.
“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891) John Singleton Copley painted Boy with a Squirrel to display his skills as a self-taught artist. His fame at the time was gained because of his skills as a talented portrait artist, having no formal artistic training. However, Copley wanted more than local success. Knowing there is more than just painting portraits his whole career, he intended to send this painting to an exhibition in London. He wanted to demonstrate everything he had to offer, the skills he developed by simply observing other artists. Boy with a Squirrel is an early masterpiece of Copley’s. He shows a masterful usage of composition using color. He also has an impeccable ability to create a variety of texture.
Copley painted his subject in profile, a vibrant red curtain framing the subject’s face. He depicts the young boy’s skin as soft and light, contrasting well with the drapes behind him. The boy wears a dark frock coat, with a detail pink satin collar. A yellow vest is seen underneath, obscuring a white shirt, the buttonholes of the vest being highly detailed. White ruffled cuffs are painted with great care, as to show the play of light on the subject. Following the direction of his right hand, his hand is brightly illuminated against a dark contrasting background, again, showing his ability to render soft textured skin. His hand itself is delicately holding a gold chain, carefully painted to show the glimmer and shape of each individual oval of the chain. The chain runs along the subject’s hand, flowing down and skews towards the right of the composition. At the end of this trail, a pet squirrel. Copley displayed great talent at painting this small creature, emphasizing its large dark eyes, rendering the soft brown fur successfully and delicately painting the long grey whiskers. Another object that Copley has demonstrated his great artistic ability in is the mahogany table in front directly in front of the sitter. The table is rendered beautifully and polished very thoroughly. Its shows the Copley’s ability to paint a physical object’s reflection. We can see the reflections of the glass of water and the squirrel, polished into the richly brown mahogany table. We can also see the white reflecting off from his ruffled cuffs and a subtle dark reflection from his coat. All these elements in Boy with a Squirrel, the sitter, the squirrel, the table, they demonstrate that this painting was made to exhibit the self-taught artistic abilities John Singleton Copley had achieved.
Boy with a Squirrel by John Singleton Copley was a masterpiece made during his budding success. He created this piece with the intent to ship it to a London exhibition, it was not destined to be a simple commission for a local market. He knew he had more to offer than just painting portraits. Knowing of the art academies overseas, he decided to display his talents as a self-taught artist to reach other professional artists. And to his credit, it did receive praise. A leading English artist, Sir Joshua Reynolds, called the painting “a very wonderfull Performance.” He did however also mention that if Copley wanted to be more accomplished, he needed to receive proper artistic training. Oscar Wilde’s comment, “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891) is a great example of what Boy with a Squirrel as to why Copley painted this portrait. He wanted to break out from a single category of art, and to expand his knowledge on other artistic techniques. He demonstrated everything he taught himself into this single portrait, veering slightly away from a conventional portrait and adding in other elements to show his determination of breaking away from a single-minded community. John Singleton Copley was indeed a great American artist, and his painting Boy with a Squirrel showed how his great effort to branch out was what kept him to continue painting to the highest degree.
Jack Foss
Art 474
Robert Tracy
First Writing Assignment
When painting a portrait, your subject provides so much more to capture than just its pure visual elements. Living subjects have personality and character that viewers often look for in portraits. This aspect of portraiture is sharply expressed in a statement from a letter written by an 18th century English Nobleman named Lord Chesterfield. He wrote, “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” Not unlike Chesterfield, many wealthy merchant patrons in colonial America sought after portraiture that adequately captured the enigmatic liveliness of its subject. The demand for this type of art was supplied in a uniquely patriotic way by the 18th Century colonial American artist, John Singleton Copley.
Copley had a very fresh and entirely new approach to painting. His early training in art consisted of him reproducing encyclopedic drawings from books that were available to him. He would not receive a formal education in art until late in his career. The lack of popular outside influence in Copley’s work was what made it unique and entirely American. Copley’s artistic approach, untainted from the already established European methodology, left him basing his work off the subject before him and nothing else. This artistic approach, based simply on acute awareness of the subject enabled Copley to develop a sixth-sense for the subject’s personality and character.
Personality can be very difficult to capture and depict through painting. Painters oftentimes harbor artistic biases that deter an accurate depiction of the subject. Copley’s pure approach freed his work from saturated tropes like idealization that plagued shallow portraiture. Copley painted his subjects how they were, emphasizing what made his subject distinct without caricaturing. Despite his acute focus on the physical form and its many details, it was not a goal of Copley’s to capture that alone. Copley observed these physical details and used them as a vehicle to depict his subject not as a figure, but as an individual with their own sentience. This pure depiction was highly sought after by the merchant class art patrons of Copley’s time. Just like Lord Chesterfield, these merchants were in the market for work that accurately depicted the inside of hearts and minds. Copley found great success with this clientele who grew weary of flat, lifeless, and pretentiously idealized European portraiture.
Copley’s Portrait of Mrs. James Russell embodies his successfulness in capturing the inside of the subject’s heart and mind. I know very little about this painting’s subject, Katherine Graves, outside of her apparent affiliation with the merchant class. Although historical context is relatively lacking, the painting still suggests much about her as a person. The style that Copley uses depicts Katherine very organically yet dignified. Traces of her genuine personality are evident all throughout the portrait, leaving little room for shallowness. The texture of her skins and her bodily proportions respectfully indicate her age. That, alongside her facial expression, reflects the familiar demeanor of many similar women. Although these traits that she shares with many other women her age are depicted, Copley’s keen eye for nuance still sets this portrait of Katherine apart from the other women that Copley has painted. This individuality is evident in all of the seemingly minor details. I look at her hands and notice a lot. They seem loose, almost mid movement, each of her fingers is posed differently but not without natural correspondence. The particular positioning of her hands and all of what they consist conveys a sense of liveliness in the subject. This liveliness is particular to Katherine. The subject is lively in a manner that likely parallels the real Katherine’s liveliness.
Hands aside, there are details in many other parts of this portrait that reflect the inside of Mrs. James Russell’s personality. Going back to her facial expression, it is a modernly pleased hint of a smirk that women her age are no strangers to making. Instead of using her head as a template to convey the general essence of that expression, he captures her unique take on that expression. Copley is observant of the every subtle departure made by Katherine from the generalized smirk, leaving her character distinctions, and by proxy, her personality on clear display.
Although a major focus of Copley’s was accurate and honest depiction of his subjects, this painting still contains light deviation. Instead of deviating for the sake of idealization, Copley’s subtle changes drew focus to who the subject was beyond their mere physical form. These changes were not intrusive or distracting from the subject’s true essence. In Portrait of Mrs. James Russell copley applied lighting changes. There is little evidence of Katherine’s non pertinent surroundings. It seems to be redacted via low lighting. In contrast, Katherine is under an especially bright light. Tenebrism was used to alter their painting in a way that added a tasteful amount of drama and literally shed light onto the subject, emphasizing the nuances that represent how Katherine carries herself as a dignified woman.
John Singleton Copley’s colonial work in portraiture was exemplary in depicting the mysterious enigma personality that many patrons like Lord Chesterfield sought. His purely original style that was uninhibited by outside artistic motifs was able to capture people for how they are and how they are, not just what they are.
Tabiya Conyers
Robert Tracy
Art 474.1001
25 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
Portrait painting is a looking glass into something more than a painting of a human. When portraits are made, they are supposed to be copies of what is seen in front of the artist. So how does one paint the life of a human surely just by looking at a mold of a body? In an excellent quote, it is stated that, “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (English nobleman Lord Chesterfield, in a letter dated 1747). This quote is explaining that portraits are beyond just a person on a canvas; instead, there are important factors to consider when looking close at paintings. In fact, the portraits can tell the viewer more about what the person, or even artist, is trying to express about themselves.
In the “Self Portrait of Thomas Smith”, created in 1691, where Smith is portrayed with a skull and has a sad smile on his face. There is a window behind him with scenery of things that were happening at the time the portrait was made. The painting is pretty dark in color, and it is in the baroque style. Many features of the painting played with the third dimension and was more of a realistic approach to portrait painting. Smith’s self-portrait was created in lieu of his illness and it was a prediction of his death that would soon come later. So many aspects of the painting were little glimpses into Smith’s life and what he was dealing with.
In the background there is a window present; the window could have simply been something vague or made up, but the events out his window were what would have been happening during the time period he was in. The window really makes the viewer wonder what importance the scenery meant to the artists. Maybe the image behind Smith was the happy or significant memories he was leaving behind him. Behind him the viewer can see boats, which is something to watch out for considering Smith was a mariner/sea captain. Textures are present in the clouds and the contrast in colors lead the viewer’s eyes to the window in the portrait. This is an example of Chesterfield’s quote. The window would be an example of the heart of the man. Since Smith pursued painting later in life, he obviously has had other loves present before creating the painting. One of those so happened to be boats.
As for the ‘head’ of the piece, there is a skull present in Smith’s portrait. Smith had known he was dying so his impending death was an influence in Smith’s life. The skull represented the pain/reality of Smith’s condition. Smith himself presented a frown on his face in the painting. Perhaps, the frown was to look more regal, but the dark tone of the piece makes the frown appear more gloomy. The saying that ‘eyes are the window to the soul,’ is true in this piece as well because Smith’s eyes express an emotional impact that is morose.
On the other hand, one may ask if Chesterfield’s quote applies to all portrait painting, including ones that are not self made. In the instance of Limner’s, “Elizabeth Freake and Baby Mary”, created in 1671-4, the picture seems to appear formal with not a lot of personality at first glance, but a lot can be said about this portrait. The portrait is of a mother and her baby and is a flatter portrait than Smith’s piece. The family of two are well-dressed and are represented as wealthy based on their attire. This includes, nice lace, expensive-looking material, ribbons, and pearls. The style is considered Elizabethan/Jacobean The background is dark with a lighter foreground, which helps highlight the main subjects. Even though the painting appears to be a straight-forward portrait there are many things to question in the piece.
The main element that sticks out is the faces of the baby and Elizabeth Freake. Neither the mother or child have a smile on their face. That can be that neither of them were happy at that point in time or perhaps the artist made a creative choice to not make them smile. Another thing t6hat stuck out was the orientation of the way the mom was holding her child. The Freake was not coddling or holding the child like a priceless person, instead she has a hand on the baby’s shoulder like a pal or friend would and then the other is on the child’s stomach. In all honesty, the baby looks as if it is a doll more than a baby, which makes more of a disconnect between the mother and child. The image doesn’t just share an image of a mother and child, but actually shares their relationship or tells a story. Around that time, most wealthier families would not be that close to their children, so the negativity that is felt when looking at the portrait may be valid. Freake has a little glimpse of a smirk on her face in the portrait which makes it seem like she is happy with her status, so her closeness to her child may be spacious, but her image in society means more to her than anything else. No one can be sure what the artist, Limner, or the family were trying to display, but there are feelings that a portrait can invoke that express a story that can be interpreted from person to person. So Chesterfield’s quote, “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man,” is valid in many cases including ones that seem opposing what the quote is about.
Overall, any type of painting or art can make a viewer want to investigate more about the subject, but portrait painting in particular is interesting because it is a puzzle into who is being painted. Not every portrait may get a backstory to it, so it is up to the artist to express who the person being painted is on the inside by expressing it on the outside of their form. Not everything is a face value explanation and that is one of the most important aspects about art in general.
Andrew Yau
Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001 & ART 472-1001
03/25/2021
First Opinion Paper
“By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (English nobleman Lord Chesterfield, in a letter dated 1747)
The balancing act of adhering to an employers guidelines while still allowing
one’s artistic ability and vision to show is one that has been prevalent from hundreds of years in the past to the modern day. Artists by nature are always trying to improve their craft and push their limits in order to fully capture their constantly running imaginations and aspirations and portray them in a physical medium. The skill one builds up from that seemingly endless pursuit is what attracts others to them, sometimes fellow artists and other times regular people with an appreciation for their craft. If their skill is sought out enough then they will be hired to do work, and during the time of the 1700-1800s that primarily took the form of portraiture.
John Singleton Copley’s Portrait of Joseph Sherburne (1767-1770) is one of the many portraits that Copley did during his life, and best showcases the status quo and expectation of what one could expect from a simple portrait piece. It’s fairly simple in it’s posing and composition, but there’s just enough intrigue to keep one’s eye on the painting. The figure lounges with his body leaning on the table, his other arm resting on the top of a chair, he exudes a sense of normalcy and day-to-day that is both familiar to the common viewer and foreign. The pose is one that any person can do, but the person doing it is not a common man. The normalcy and comfort he enjoys is due to his riches and status; signified by the fancy clothes he wears, the ornately designed cloth placed onto his table and wall, and the chair he’s sitting in is also fairly fancy but not too gaudy in its design. Lastly there is the facial expression that has the hints of pride, authority, and smugness to it. These hints of personality are able to make the viewer see the man as a person who owns the wealth they see, rather than a man with wealth by his side. These Copley portraits are a good mix of adhering to commissioner guidelines of painting these people in the best light possible with their achievements and property while also adding slight hints to personality and emotion.
Contrast this to the portrait of Walt Whitman (1887-1888) by Thomas Eakins. Seen clearly is a man in the last stage of his life, a face clearly conveying the years he has lived through, his clothes are respectable but not quite fashionable, the brushwork is rough, the background is plain and drab, and the colors are dreary and weathered. Not only is the subject of this portrait old and worn but the space in which he resides is very similar to the man himself in color palette and rendering. As a result of this, the edges of his right arm and shadowed left side of his body nearly blend into the background making it seem as if the man is slowly being assimilated by it. The merging of the man and background was likely a conscious choice by Eakins to symbolize the man’s feelings of complacency and idleness as he’s become too old to move and affect what surrounds him; becoming part of the background as the younger generations begin to take center stage in the world. Additionally, the clothes he wears carries a similar theme as they are a fairly respectable looking set but have been worn in and cannot his old age and subsequent fragility. Lastly there are the eyes; dark, hard, almost cold, but dense with the weight of the things he’s seen and lived. They are undoubtedly the strongest part of this man, but also the saddest because within his gaze of life experience is the knowledge that his life will soon come to an end. This portrait is a polar opposite to Copley’s, as they portray weakness, frailty, and the lack of material wealth.
Copley’s portrait is able to draw out hints of personality from his subject despite having to surround him with material wealth. In those hints of personality he was able to show a bit of the mind of the subject, prideful of his accomplishments and wanting to show it to those around him. On the other hand Eakin’s drew out both the heart and mind of his subject by painting someone “bare”. The only thing being showcased in this portrait is the man himself, everything else, such as his clothes and the background, is acting as complementary elements to him rather than the opposite. Both of these works show that portraits are not just an exact painting of what the artist sees at a surface level, but are representations of what the artist is able to see on a much deeper level as they make connections among the mundane of people’s everyday lives while also bringing them to life.
Mikaela Nettlow
ART 474 – 1001
Dr. Robert Tracy
24 March 2021
First Assignment
Portraits can tell you so much about a person. Depending on how the artist depicts the subject, effective portraiture conveys not only the likeness of the individual but also the personality and heart of said individual. However, when you paint an effective portrait, unlike what people may think, actual physical resemblance is not the top priority for a lot of painters, but capturing the subject’s personality is.
“By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (Chesterfield 1747).This quote by an English nobleman by the name of Lord Chesterfield originating from a letter describes the feeling that portraiture needs to give off in order to be considered a work of art. When people think of portraits, they mainly think about the simple depiction of a person but it is so much more than that. When one paints a portrait, yes, physical resemblance is key but you also need to figure out their personality, their quirks, and their soul and make that show through your brush strokes. Portraits are more than just outlines and whether or not you got the subject’s resemblance. Like Chesterfield said, it is all about “the heart and mind of man.” And Thomas Eakins’ The Cello Player is one of the perfect examples of that.
The Cello Player has remained one of Eakins’ most recognizable and best works and it is for good reason. Like the title of the painting describes, it is simply a man dressed in black playing a cello. But what makes this painting different from the others is that you can almost feel that person’s presence through that painting. The focused but somber look on his face defined by brush strokes, the steadiness of his hand on the bow, and how he holds his cello so gently and with care can give me the impression of who this cello player is and what their personality is like just by taking a glance at the painting. Rather than just trying to cast physical resemblance, Eakins decided to paint his subject on what he is most passionate about-playing the cello. It showcased the subject’s heart and mind so much that even if the painter might have not gotten the player’s physical features all correct, it showcased him enough that people that may know of him recognize him. And that is effective portraiture at its finest.
As mentioned above, physical resemblance of the subject is not the only top priority that artists are concerned with when they are painting a portrait. It is a very important aspect that should not be overlooked and the client’s satisfaction is key. However, you can paint someone as accurate as you can and recognize every single pore of that individual, but the client may not believe the painting looks like them because all the personality and soul of that individual would disappear if you focus solely on the physical features. The Cello Player exemplifies that capturing that physical resemblance is not the only important feature to showcase the individual as best as the painter can as it shows off the subject’s personality and what they do. As a result of that, it places some recognition on the subject to not only the subject themselves but also the people around them. Even absolute strangers might recognize them because their resemblance shows through the painting.
Thomas Eakins’ The Cello Player is one of the perfect examples that explain Chesterfield’s quote. Chesterfield expressed the impression that portraiture must elicit in order to be considered a work of art. Portraits are more than just outlines and whether or not you were able to catch the subject’s likeness. It’s all about “man’s heart and mind,” as Chesterfield put it. And The Cello Player showcases on what he is talking about perfectly.
No man ever painted history as if he could obtain employment in portraits.”
(Gilbert Stuart, quoted in Richardson, Gilbert Stuart)
A fitting quote for the art profession if there ever was one. It looks simple or even nonsensical, but the longer you look at it the more complex it gets; the more the gears in your head start to turn.
What could it mean? After rereading it for about ten minutes, I still do not know if I have the answer, or if there is even a “the” answer. What I got from it was that nobody paints a scene, of say, nature thinking it will be revered in the same way a portrait is, especially when it comes to a historical figure. While portraiture could easily find some footing in the market a nature scene must have been exceptionally more difficult. As such, more effort is put forth in order to make something that can be viewed as mundane, as nature often is, into something fantastical.
The first piece that came to mind while writing the above paragraphs was Thomas Cole’s The Course of Empire: Desolation (1836). Solemn does not even begin to describe this painting. Thomas Cole is very successful in capturing the emotion of nature; that feeling one gets when looking out on the horizon. Emotion is a factor that takes painstaking skill to convey, especially in work with no faces or figures. Obviously, the subject matter and time period play a large role in this.
The ruins of a long-ago civilization being depicted during a period of American expansion is sort of a poetic concept. As the American “settlers” expanded into nature, nature consumes the pristine white pillars and remarkable aqueducts of Rome. As they are consumed, the neglected structures are shown to be cracked and breaking.
The detail work on this piece is commendable. The faraway towers in the distance, especially. The fine attention to make them present yet foggy due to their distance from the foreground must have been painstaking. The lighting of the piece is a pale-yellow, a daybreak scene, perhaps. The moon is a tiny dot center frame and long, stringy clouds creep in from the left and can be seen starting to hide the moon. Not even the cosmos are safe from the changing times.
The second piece I found to also fit my interpretation was another one of Cole’s works, The Oxbow (1836). As with Desolation Cole succeeds in conveying the majesty of nature through lighting. The roaring storm creeps in from the left and contrasts the light shining down on the titular oxbow. Unlike Desolation, this scene does not feature as much human made structures, with the only man-made object clearly visible in the entire composition being a parasol at the edge of the cliff.
As with his other works, Cole does not skimp on the details. As the viewer looks closer, one can see that the grass is not just one, uniform color. There are yellow and dull greens, and they are divided geometrically, suggesting that they are farmlands of sorts.
It’s very interesting to see how Cole divides his canvases, not only in lighting, but in subject matter. The foreground is full of these lush blue green trees, there are stumps that have not been cleared away. It is in clear opposition to the bright farmlands below, and the fact that they are dimly lit by the storm speaks to that. Perhaps the 19th century artist was going for a bit of subtle symbolism. Maybe he was warning that in the end, nature will consume and correct what mankind has created. After all, he depicted an example of this before.
Cole is literally painting American history and yet, it is not brought up when discussing the great works. After all, what is an oxbow when compared to a portrait of the founding fathers? What is looking into the past when “settlers” were looking towards the future? To many, insignificant. Though artists throughout history have put their life’s work into being “insignificant.”
Jasmine Small
ART 474-1001
March 25, 2021
Opinion/ Position Paper
When I was in fourth grade, I remember my first portrait. With a picture of myself on the table beside me and the basic outline the teacher had displayed on the board; I created my first self-portrait. Unfortunately, by the time I was done I could not recognize the figure before me. I had made my eyes completely even and aligned them to the figure on the board. My lips were even and straight. My hair, like the photograph, was displayed in a tight ponytail making it relatively nonexistent on the page. I had followed everything I was told to do, but this figure was not me. My eyes were never even, and my lips were missing their familiar curl. I had captured my image but did not make a successful portrait. As Lord Chesterfeild stated in a letter, “By portraits, I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (1747) I had captured a human image, but not my personality and therefore, not my portrait. To have a successful portrait, one must understand their subject or what makes a person a person and then what the goal of their portrait is.
When creating a portrait, I find it important to consider who or what your subject is. True that portraits are usually focused on a person, but what makes that person a person? With the speedy development of AI, I find this question to be increasingly important though hard to give a definitive answer too. It is my belief that what separates a person from a hollow humanoid robot is sentients and personality. My understanding of sentients was inspired by 17th century French Rationalist René Descartes who stated, “Cogito, ergo sum,” or “I think, therefore I am.” I always took this quote to be a declaration of existence and of self-recognition/affirmation. A sense of being is necessary to be sentient, and then a personality is then added to become a full person. Personality creates individuality that then can turn an ambiguous herd of humans into individual people.
With a better understanding of the subject, or what makes a person a person, it is then important to consider the purpose of a portrait. I believe that there are only two reasons as to why a portrait would be created. The first would be to show an individual as they were in life at the time. This focuses heavily on realism. The second would be to show an individual as they should be. These I connect to religious or royal paintings that tend to exaggerate the figure’s attributes in favor of public opinion. I think this reason also aligns with many modern-day character artists. Their job is to exaggerate features of a person to capture a personality that the public around the subject could recognize easily. Between these two I do believe there can be a middle ground, and that is where I think artists like Thomas Eakins thrive. His 1875 painting, The Gross Clinic, portrays Dr. Samuel D. Gross and feels almost exaggerated with the way Dr. Gross is bathed in light in such an idyllic manner, but it is also incredibly realistic with the blood on his hand as he holds the knife. This is why I think Eakins’s paintings ride the line between staying true to both the historical and social interpretation of a person’s identity.
What also makes Eakins’s portraits so successful is the sense of personality that he puts forth into them. When looking at the Portrait of Mary Adeline Williams that Eakins’s painted in 1899, it is clear that his goal for this piece was to capture, not just the image of this woman, but her life through the painting. Her forehead wrinkles and stray hairs on the back of her neck all give off her personality. Her form is not rigid like a corpse, but instead relaxed with a natural curve of her neck and tilt of her head. Her expression is content, with her gaze not at the viewer, but at another object nearby. This indirect eye contact builds the realism for me as having a portrait look directly at the viewer can sometimes be interpreted as breaking the fourth wall. While a portrait with the subject looking elsewhere feels as if the image was captured at a raw moment in their life. Quite possibly, this is Eakins’s attempt to capture the expression that is made when it is assumed when no one is looking. This effect gives off the individual’s personality and soul. Techniques like these are what make Eakins’s portraits so successful.
It is not easy to create a successful portrait. Technicalities such as line and shading will only get an artist so far. That is why, as Lord Chesterfeild stated, it is important to express the soul of the subject in the portrait. Such knowledge and understanding of what makes a person a person and how to properly present their identity from a historical or social perspective are what make artists like Thomas Eakins so successful. His way of displaying the personality of his subjects through fine yet recognizable details are what make his works stand on their own against the top portrait painters of today.
First Opinion Paper
Lauren Sato
“By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure but the inside of the heart and mind of man” English nobleman Lord Chesterfield in a letter dated 1747. Sometimes as artists we tend to focus on the form and technique of a painting instead of the mind of the person who is creating and manipulating the medium. I myself often find myself being critical of my form instead of painting through my heart and mind. When it comes to painting, yes technique is quite a staple. But sometimes the soul of the artist is lost when critiquing or even just admiring and viewing their work and technique becomes the main topic and discussion.
“The White Girl” by James Abbott McNeill Whistler is a full body portrait of his mistress at the time, Johanna Heffernan. oil on canvas 83 x 42 inches. She is pictured on a wolf skin rug and holding a white lily in her left hand. Influenced by the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood style of painting, this is considered an Avant Garde piece. Heffernan is shown shrouded in a white dress in front of a white backdrop and stands on a bestial rug. Supported by its formalist technique and subtle orchestrated tonal variations, there is no doubt Whistler had his form perfected. But isn’t there more to a painting than technique? In my opinion, this is what Lord Chesterfield meant when he said that there is another part to a perfectly painted figure on a canvas. Whistler portrays Heffernan with a view of innocence by showcasing her large “doe eyed”, almost blank stare. Some viewers say her facial expression comes off as no personality but I think her dreamy, heroine-esque look about her is an allusion to Whistler’s emotions towards her. She was a dream, something unattainable for a man who was already betrothed to another woman. The lily in her left hand may symbolize virginity and the rejection of a guided path which also is a nod to Whistler’s strong and wistful thoughts of her. The lily can also symbolize carnality which is a parallel to the bestial rug she is standing on and creates a juxtaposition between the virginity of all white and the sensualness of the rug. Another allusion to Whistler’s erotic undercurrents for his muse and mistress.
Mary Cassat was another American artist whose form was impeccable and was known for being a bit radical in her ways in which she decided she had no specific art identity, she was confidently independent. Her iconic painting “The Bath” portrays a mother daughter relationship during bathtime. Cassat creates a wonderful tension of forms between one another and draws the viewer into the perspective of a real life angle. The mother and daughter are so close to one another that you really feel the intimacy and trust between the two. The viewer really feels the maternal closeness to the child in the painting. Behind the form and technique of this painting, I believe that Cassat was able to really portray the closeness of a mother and daughter relationship because of her own experience with her own daughter. She painted with her heart and soul and it shows through the way the body language and facial expressions are between one another. A mother is shown sitting down with her daughter on her lap over a tub of water. The mother is washing the child’s foot while the child braces herself with her hand on her mother’s thigh. Their facial expressions are calm and peaceful as if the mother is telling her daughter a story or reassuring words of kindness. Doing a deeper dive on this iconic piece, the form of the bodies are really highlighted from one article to another. In order to display such maternal closeness, it had to have come from the heart. Cassat’s choice to focus on mother child themes was definitely a choice that came from the heart.
Lord Chesterfield was right in the way that art is not only forms, figures and technique. It is the heart and soul behind it which makes it art. To be able to create something that enables the viewer to feel anything, any sort of emotion is only created from within the artist’s emotion and mindset. One of my favorite sayings is that if it makes you feel, then it is considered art. I think we often times forget that technique is not everything and is it not a qualification to be considered art. Heart and mind are the very livelihoods of some of the best and most famous artists in history and that is why that quote spoke out to me the most.
Annie Lin
Art 474/472 Combined First Opinion Paper
James McNeill Whistler is one of the important figures who made a significant impact in the development of American art. Born in 1834, Whistle created countless work in his 69 years of life. While learning his art, Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl is one work that attracts me the most. Oscar Wilde once mentioned in his novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, that “every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” The White Girl is one work that gives me such feeling. Although it depicts a beautiful woman, the enigmatic energy comes from the artist.
To begin with, The White Girl was painted during the winter of 1861 to 1862, when he was 27-years old. Joanna Heffernan, Whistler’s mistress, was the muse of this painting. Whistler painted this specifically for the 1862 Royal Academy of Arts exhibition in London. The work was meant for showing his talent to the world. Yet, the painting was rejected. Whistler then tried to submit it for 1863 Pairs Salon, and it got rejected too. The criticism of this painting includes saying it is “incomplete” and “bizarre”. To me, I share the same thought with Whistler, that is, “She was still beautiful.”
When first look at this painting, my eyes were immediately drawn by this young, red hair lady. Although her face does not occupy the majority space, the silhouette of her dress and figure captures the essence of traditional beauty. It reminds me of a Greek goddess statue, who stood gracefully with her drapes on the floor. Further, the white dress stands out instead of blends in with the white curtain background. Although the sleeves of the dress have a similar value with the curtain, the emphasis on the folds makes them standout. Further, by using similar value in the fore and back, Whistler suggests how the environment also gives meaning to the figure. Where she is at represents the who she is.
Continuing with the idea of how environment relate to the lady, the fact that she is stepping on the skin of a wolf is interesting. While the woman is fragile and innocent, the wolf skin looks anguish and aggressive. There is a dramatic contrast between the wild and docile. Further, the decorative carpet suggests the comfortable environment that she is in. She is well protected and has a high status.
As I move my eyes around the place she is in, I become curious about how she would look like. When looking closer, her eyes attracted me the most. She gazes into a place that I will not be able to know, her irises are out of focus. The eyes are dazed, as if she is under a spell. Her rosy complexion makes her stand out in the white values, along with the vibrant color in her hair. I notice how the brush strokes are fuzzy in some areas of her face, and how some areas of muscles are not identified clearly. For instance, the eye lids and nose are defined only by some shades of grayish brown. Although there is minimal definition in depicting the face, yet they successfully capture the flesh tone and appearance that incites people’s imagination. In addition, her hand holding the remining piece of the falling flower makes great comparison with her face. The falling of white lily represents the loss of innocent, and connecting it with her dreamy appearance, they together suggest the imagination of an indulging night. The symbolism invites the viewer to think about the potential meanings.
I start to pay attention with Whistler’s strokes, and I am soon captured by how unique they are. Whistler used smooth strokes when comes to the folds of the dress, having less emphasis on the material since the fabric will not reveal its texture when it hides in shadow. On the other hand, the surface of the fabric looks rough. There are visible bristle marks, only the folds have less noticeable texture. Further, Whistler treats the sleeves in a different manner. There is less rough texture. The smooth blending between values suggests the texture of organza. Moving down to her dress, I notice how Whistler uses less paints to reveal the surface of the canvas. In this way, he was able to use the surface of the canvas to represent the texture of the dress. Notice how the hand and flower have more paints, and they appear to be smooth, the contrast between the fabric and the fragile objects is pleasing to the eyes. Whistler’s attention to detail does not end in the background. The silky curtain and fluffy carpet come to life with Whistler’s masterful technique.
After spending some time looking at this piece, I start to connect this portrait to Whistler more than to Joanna Heffernan. Indeed, Whistler capture the erotic beauty of Heffernan, he was also interpretating the personality of Heffernan based on his feelings. Through careful organization of composition, color, and texture, Whistler was presenting his feelings behind the presence of the lady in painting. The labor and attention show that Whistler is patient and dedicated with his art. Further, he values the beauty of abstract, and we learn these through his unidentified shapes and loose strokes. His knowledge in color is exceptional, the white on white does not confuse the viewer about where to look. The choice on depicting the woman with dazed complexion and the falling of white lily, represents Whistler’s pursuit in seeking vague, imaginative readings for his piece. These skills make Whistler a painter that not only paints the presence of the sitter, but also uses his own creative thoughts in capturing his model.
Again, I recall the quote from Oscar Wilde, “every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” I start to appreciate Whistler’s talent in painting portrait. If any of the details is missing from this painting, I would not be under the spell of this woman. I also start to think that, with the expectation to be known, Whistler was ambitious when painting this piece. This painting was done to perfection, it is the gemstone of Whistler’s passion.
Sienna Patino
Robert Tracy
Art 474 Section 1001
25 March 2021
“To sit for one’s portrait is like being present at one’s own creation.”
I hold this quote to be especially true in the portraits created by John Singleton Copely. I find this truth to be relevant for both the American-invented style of his self-portrait in comparison to the more English/European style portrait of himself. He wished to paint himself in two different lights, both following the different styles of art with which he chose to go forth and pursue. This is exactly why he looks so drastically different in both of these images: because he intentionally wanted to create himself to be two different personas. He carefully and methodically planned for these portraits to look as they did, ensuring the way he created himself would appeal in both styles: American and English.
His colonial self-portrait paints Copley as someone who is less formal and looks more inquisitive. One can see he is staring directly at the viewer in this portrait, not off to the side, nor at anyone else. His eyes also read well into the rest of his expression, his lips are slightly pursed and his head is tilted in a way that makes one eyebrow almost look cocked. It gives him a look of someone more human, inquisitive, creative. His clothing also looks less formal: the top button of his collared shirt is undone, and there is a great focus on detail on his clothing. The color choice of these garments is highly saturated, if not a bit exaggerated. The drapery details in the folds contain great contrast. Against his face, it turns his skin tone and texture very soft. Likewise, his hair is nowhere near as detailed. Strands are just barely visible and his ponytail is so dark it is nearly invisible.
I find the American portrait-style of Copley to be less formal, and I find that works to his benefit as an American artist. One of the primary principles that came with people leaving Europe was to separate from what they had already known and branch off into creating their society. The same can be said and true about Copley’s portraiture. Where it is obvious he took some of the elements from European-style art, this could also be effective of the colonists lacking any knowledge of other cultures’ portrait art styles. Copley’s expression looks more humanistic and less pompous. His clothing has wrinkles and details and his top button is down. The lack of elegancy humbles him, and it makes me think about the art process in creating this portrait. He stripped himself of this proud European-descended individual and created an identity of someone new within themselves, and within a new society.
Copley’s English self-portrait shares his likeness as in the Colonial portrait, however, one can see he made them from two drastically different approaches. His expression is far more blank. His eyes are half-lidded and his gaze turns off the frame. His features are not soft, but very rigid and strongly defined by his abrupt brush strokes. This heavily pushes the contrast of his bone structure. His jawline, his nose, and his lips are all very prominent. There is also a much greater contrast in his hair. Because of the thicker use of painstrokes, one can see where pure white streaks had been added amongst the wig of gray tones. Likewise, the ponytail is much more obvious as it is a different color from the background. Due to the high detail in his face, there is a lack of detail in his clothing. They, instead, stand as large masses of red and white with the brush strokes implicating the lines where the wrinkles would be within them. It almost blurs together, forcing the viewer to fixate more on the face.
I find Copley’s English self-portrait to be much more traditional, especially in the way people typically think of self-portraits even today. People want to see themselves in the best light possible, even if certain features are exaggerated. I believe this portrait was intentionally painted to look posher and high class to comply with European art standards for the time. There is a greater exaggeration of contrast with the heavy use of white paint. He also made his nose and lips much more defined. He made sure there was a distinct shape to the bridge of his nose as it popped out from the rest of his face. In the same manner, his top lip is much plumper, making his lips look fuller overall. The higher-defined details in his hair also make it appear thicker. In this piece, he looks much more idealized. He looks younger, bolder, and more pompous than his Colonist-style portrait. This is where Copley wanted to be created in the light of a traditional European painter. He wanted to look as sculpturesque as others had painted their figures for centuries.
“To sit for one’s portrait is like being present at one’s own creation.” It is a quote especially true of portraitists. Copley happened to be a portraitist of dynamic styles. His Colonist/American style appeared softer and took the viewer’s eye in a gaze away from just the facial features. Instead, the eyes are lead throughout the piece, gazing at the intricate clothing and finding details that appeared to be hidden at first glance. In contrast, his European-style portrait poses him as someone in a high position of power, jaw out and gaze looking stoic off into the distance. This is someone who wanted to be seen in the eyes of others as deserving of respect. He wanted to be seen as someone of importance. I believe these portraits were created to demonstrate Copley visualized in different cultures. Ultimately, both of them are incredibly notable historical self-portraits of an American-born painter, but his being a European-descendant painter must not be discredited either. The influence of the European culture mixed in with the progressive American style pushed Copley into the unique mix we know it as today. I feel like his versatility as an artist is truly obvious in these portraits. Likewise, I also think he created himself in two very different styles.
Josett Manotham-Garin
Robert Tracy
ART 472 – 1001/ART 474 –1001
25 Mar 2021
First Opinion Paper: Analysis of the Raft of the Medusa
(Regarding Gericault’s Raft of the Medusa) “The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!” (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur, 1819).
For this first writing assignment, I will be focusing on one painting from ART 472 by Theodore Gericault (I also posted this on the other blog).
Scene de Naufrage (Shipwreck Scene), or Raft of the Medusa (1818-1819), portrays survivors of a catastrophic shipwreck. French painter, Theodore Gericault (1791-1824), drew attention to this painting by highlighting the gruesome nature of the event. Neoclassicism showed the aesthetics of elegance and heroism. But this painting marked the beginning of Romanticism, denying elements of Neoclassicism in the art. Raft of the Medusa is an oil on canvas painting that is life-sized. It debuted in 1819 at the Paris Salon, where it drew a large crowd and ignited debate among those who could not understand the work. This artwork is now on display at the Louvre Museum in Paris.
The artwork narrates a scene featuring a French naval ship called Meduse. It explains the horrific event of the accident as well as the aftershocks. Observers expressed divided views when the painting was presented to the public for the first time. Some were enthralled by the grotesque yet believable portrayal, while others objected to the realistic depiction of corpses, not perceived as desirable beauty. Raft of the Medusa was a turning point in French Romanticism. It set the basis for an anti-Neoclassical artistic movement.
Neoclassicism is an artistic approach that focused mainly on antiquity from Greece and Rome, which evoked unity, precision, and idealism. These characterizations were mostly rejected by the Romanticism movement. Although Gericault’s composition and figures were indeed classical, the shift in artistic direction drew attention between the Romanticism and Neoclassicism movements. Widened admiration of nature, as well as a rapture of emotions over reason and rationality, were some features of Romanticism. Not just that, but it was also a self-reflection to the artist and more of an in-depth study of human development. It emphasized that sense and emotions were just as equally important as understanding and experiencing the world. Gericault discusses the absence of normalcy in the visual arts, citing main figures were viewed as glorified heroes instead of ordinary people. He quotes, according to the PowerPoint, “The usual hero adventure begins with someone from whom something has been taken, or who feels there is something lacking in the normal experience available or permitted to the members of society. The person then takes off on a series of adventures beyond the ordinary. . .” He was intrigued by the shipwreck, and he envisioned this to be much different compared to the elements of Neoclassicism. There was no hero, but there was a tragedy happening among these people. Before working on the final painting, he conducted intensive research and developed several preparatory drawings. Gericault proceeded to do life drawing studies by visiting hospitals to sketch actual corpses and did studies of live models that he could find.
What is interesting is the background story behind this painting. This artwork incorporates underlying social and political condemnation, which triggered outrage in France. The survivors of the French frigate Meduse brought the discussion towards psychology of the limits of the human mind. These occupants executed and consumed their deceased allies (cannibalism) and killed the weakest. Because of the ship exceeding its limit of how many can actually be on board, it was obvious that there were going to be consequences in the end. Only a handful of the men were alive at this point. The rest had been slaughtered, starved to death, or flung themselves into the ocean in desperation. Due to the negligence of the ship and its occupants, the event became a public humiliation for the French empire.
In terms of visual elements, Gericault’s use of the triangle composition to separate the victims reflects his morbid viewpoint of the tragedy. Not only that, the lighting runs through both sides, making an x-shaped effect. The figures are divided into four categories: the deceased and wounded are on the left, followed by those trying to stand up in the middle towards the right. There are three figures huddled together by the masses in the middle in the third group, and then a man waving the flag in panic in the fourth group. When looking closer at the horizon line, there is a small speck that represents another boat, which is why the man with the flag is trying to catch their attention. There is a minuscule chance that they will come to rescue them, which makes this painting much more tragic.
The illumination in Raft of the Medusa is reminiscent of the Baroque style. The style used here is chiaroscuro, which has bold contrasts against the composition. Tenebrism (dramatic lighting) also enunciates the style of chiaroscuro. When the sky coincides dramatically with the gloom of the ocean, it displays imminent destruction. Darkness dominates the overall work, creating a drastic context to which the victims stand out as a harsh testament to humanity. The horizon line draws two main points: the first being the tide that surrounds the occupants. The second is the flag in the top right corner that is lifted as a final gesture of hope to the ship that may or may not save them. By using the chiaroscuro technique, it emphasizes the drama much further. It creates this sense of urgency while others are in desperation to survive. The entire composition also tackles the feeling of hope expressed through the black figure.
The shades have a gloomy, intense range, which is typical of Romantic painters. Since the mass of bodies is the focal point of the painting, flesh tones are prevalent. Gericault’s choice of the medium (oil on canvas) is rendered beautifully. It shows how he mastered his craft, along with knowledge and technicality in the visual arts. The numerous overlapping layers make the scene three-dimensional. The bodies merge so often that it’s difficult to tell which one ends and starts. Gericault’s vibrant use of lines, tones, and colors provokes a dramatic reaction to the event. As survivors of the shipwreck plunged into the struggle for life with its shocking outrageousness, it is a representation of how an individual is entrusted to their fate.
(I missed the first assignment)
By removing an object of “fancy”, the piece itself allows for the viewers to create their idea or narrative for them to go on based on what they’re seeing. Key elements such as value and color make up a huge part of the viewing part of the artwork in itself. The viewer’s job is to take in each and every part of the detail and make up their own narrative based upon what they already know. Removing this “fancy” does not hinder this but actually can increase the brain to create something that may have never been brought upon.
Catherine Mariano
Art 474-1001
26 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
If I were to define what a portrait is, I would say that it is basically a depiction (usually in the form of a painting or photo) of a person. I would also say that many people have a portrait of themselves within their own homes. Portraits are not anything new, in fact, we can see much of it throughout art history. For me, I find it interesting how much weight a portrait can have in its most basic form as a depiction of a person. As ‘easy’ as it could be to draw or paint a person’s features in the utmost realistic way, sometimes realism is not what everyone seeks when they commission a portrait in the first place. People often want to be depicted in the way they see themselves, whether in a good or bad way, which can pose multiple problems for the artist themselves.
Portrait painters are given the specific problem of making proper portrayals of the people who commission them. With people as their main subject, it can be a tricky situation for portrait painters to have to try and appease the people and their self as an artist. In Discourses, by painter Sir Joshua Reynolds, he once said “If a portrait painter is desirous to raise and improve his subject…he leaves out all the minute breaks and peculiarities in the face, and change the dress from a temporary fashion to one more permanent,” (Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses, 1769-90). From my interpretation of this quote, I don’t think that Reynolds reference to fashion is a literal reference to the clothing of the subjects within portrait paintings. I think Reynolds is alluding towards the idea that a good portrait doesn’t solely pay attention to realism. In other words, to raise the portrayal of the painted subject, the artist should pick other aspects of said subject beyond every physical, “minute” detail. I also think that when Reynolds refers to switching from “temporary fashion” to a “more permanent” one, I think he is also hinting to the artist to create or paint something that is memorable. I think he’s advising portrait painters to stray away from creating a piece where the main point is only realism. As I keep in mind the quote from Sir Joshua Reynolds, I was reminded of the paintings by Alice Neel. I think that Alice Neel’s work is a good example of having “something special” or having discerning aspects to their portraits.
The piece that I decided to focus on is Neel’s 1967 painting named, “Pregnant Julie and Algis.” Alice Neel’s stylistic choice alone is enough to set her apart regarding her portraiture. From a quick look, I can tell that she has less of a focus on making an extremely realistic piece. I think she focuses more on the essence of the people that she is depicting. In her “Pregnant Julie and Algis” piece, I see a clear emphasis on the female subject and body. In this painting, there are two main figures who, based on their body language, are in a close relationship. I’m under the assumption that the male figure is the father of the soon-to-be birthed baby within the pregnant lady. There is a male who has the majority of his body clothed and covered. In contrast, the female is completely naked and exposed. She is laying on the arm of the male and has a visible baby bump. I think that this an interesting juxtaposition because the female body can be considered a sexualized thing, especially when it is portrayed in a nude or naked way. Meanwhile the naked, pregnant female figure is placed in front of a fully dressed man. It’s a very interesting choice to paint, but Alice Neel portrays this in a very vulnerable, intimate way.
From our class’ lesson regarding Alice Neel and her work in comparison to Mary Cassatt, I think it’s interesting how the female body is differently expressed. It was made obvious that Neel, compared to Cassatt, had more opportunity to be exposed different experiences. She wasn’t as confined to a singular or conservative society, which is why I think Neel is able to offer a different kind of lens to her work. In portraiture specifically, she can play around with creating a more freed, vulnerable sensation to her paintings and when depicting females. I think this is what I find enjoyable about Alice Neel’s portraits because although she’s able to give life portraits. It’s been discussed before that portrait painters often struggle with capturing the right essence of their subjects because the subjects themselves may not like the way the artist depicted them. Although I may not necessarily know if the subjects Alice Neel’s paintings were satisfied with the outcome, I can say that her portraits do give off the feeling that she did in fact paint real people.
In conclusion, portrait painters have a tough job. Like most artists have, there is always a requirement to please someone or something. Portrait painters have a lot more at stake when it comes to transaction of being specifically commissioned to paint others in the way the subject wants. To me, portraits are most interesting when they exude a sort of energy that commands the canvas they are on. I think that Alice Neel’s work is able to encompass this kind of feeling in her portraits. Although not the most realistic or proportionally sound, she is still able to capture the rawness of her subject. And in turn, I think she fulfills what Sir Joshua Reynolds spoke about in regard to improving or raising a portrait painter’s subject.
Submitted March 26, 2021 at around 10 p.m. – contrary to the time stamp that appears.
Andres Reyes
Art 474-1001
March 29, 2021
First Opinion Paper
“The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!” (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur,1819)
This quote by Count O’ Mahony seems to empathize my relation to the thoughts and opinions of the works of Joseph Mallord William Turner. Turner is responsible for painting imaginative landscapes that often seem to depict violent depictions of marine-styled art. His works create a tone that is instantly understood by the viewer and provides an insight on the artist’s attitude toward nature. The quote that I’ve mentioned is in relation to these thoughts, and I believe it serves as a perfect example to describe the landscapes as a captivating spectacle while also adhering to the unsettling theme. The two works that would be perfect for analyzing such compositions would be Turner’s The Slave Ship and The Burning Houses of Parliament.
Turner’s The Slave Ship is a disturbing portrayal of the Zong Incident, in which the captain of a slave ship ordered his men to throw 132 slaves overboard because water was running low, and insurance covered the cost of slaves that died of natural causes. One of the interesting things when looking at this piece is the chilling tone that is reflected when encompassing all the elements together. In one area, we see a group of hands sticking out of the water, as this indicates that they are sinking due to the pressures of the ocean waves. In the distance, we can see a ship, which is assumed to be the slave ship hence the name of this art piece. The ship looks to pass by the hands as if to pronounce their refusal to acknowledge the flaunting hands in the water. The ship plays the role of dismissal, and while I already understand the history regarding this painting, it is chilling to look at the desperate struggle of people reaching out trying to survive while the ship leaves them to die. We also see birds nearing these hands as if to feed off of these future corpses. This is further amplified when we see the color red in the water and simultaneously see fish who are also covered in red nearing these drowning individuals. While the gruesome details capture the knowledge of what’s going on, I believe the most significant contribution to this artwork is the choice of color and use of light and dark that brings this eerie depiction to life. We see grays and blues that depict somber color themes, while the use of bright colors like yellow and orange are used to amplify scenery and provide a highlight of nature itself. I am bringing the nature aspect into this discussion because there is something sad about knowing that this is happening on earth and how the people living here can commit such atrocities. When you incorporate all of this into one painting, we get an unfortunate and somber view of the past depicted in such an artistically beautiful way. This brings back to Mahony’s quote, and I feel Turner’s work in itself perfectly captures the quotes personification of beauty in both the portrayal of the artwork while including the disturbing history surrounding it.
Turner’s The Burning Houses of Lords and Commons is a series of two paintings that capture the scenery of the burning of Parliament. Turner himself was there during the event and decided to capture this scene in his artwork. In the first painting, the scene depicts the houses within a close distance from a high place. We see the Parliament houses on the left set ablaze, so severely the smoke dominates the sky, and the reflection distance of the water effectively conveys the fire’s damage. We also see a crowd gathered to see the fire, and comparing the distance between them showcases the tone of how nature in itself is a dominant force. The same scenery is taking place in the next painting but within a much longer and farther distance. The second painting truly captures just how much damage the fire creates because we see just how far the fire rises while also viewing the complete shift in the scenery. The fire in itself is both the visual and literal tone shifter. We see this with the colors, as harsh grays are used to describe the complete domination of smoke used, as they cover the reflection of the water, sky, and surrounding areas. I believe this is what effectively creates the mood of this scene and enhances the idea of nature itself as a brutal force. The complete and sheer power nature has over us is what Turner aspires to create in his works. Because viewing nature in its most violent form creates such a raw and powerful emotion for the viewer. I believe the paintings’ mood should encompass our deep thoughts, not within the painting’s details, but within the way everything is described based on both the color shifts and residual scenery. When comparing The Burning Houses of Parliament with The Slave Ship, the themes are different, yet, Turner’s talent for conveying both works heavily reflects on his understanding of combining surrounding elements like color and detail placement. Overall, the painting successfully captures this feeling of an untouchable presence described by the monstrous forms of nature. Which relates to Mahony’s quote about how something visually disturbing can evoke such beauty.
Philip Johnson
Robert Tracey
Art 472
March 26, 2021
First Opinion/Position Paper
“Your color is not true; all these contrasts of light and dark made me think that you paint the moonlight, and as for your life studies, they resemble nature as a violin case resembles a violin.” quoted by Pierre Guerin, is a quote that could describe many artworks and artistic pieces that have come and gone throughout the history of art. However, one particular painting by a special artist of the nineteenth century seems to encapsulate this quote perfectly. The name of the artist is Manet, and his work, “Claude Monet in his Studio Boat” is a wonderful artwork that the quote can be attributed to. To truly understand how this artwork manages to be an embodiment of the quote presented prior, the artwork must be analyzed from a variety of perspectives, involving its technique, execution, and more.
The painting is a good representation of Guerin’s quote. It was made by Edouard Manet, a French painter who was one of the major artists in the transition from Realism to Impressionism during the 19th Century. Manet is often heralded as one of the first modern artists. This painting was created after he spent a summer with both Monet and his wife, for which the painting was directly influenced. As the quote stated, the life studies of Monet can be compared to how a violin case looks to a violin, for which this painting’s portrayal of modern life compares to directly. The rushed yet sudden composition of this painting is one that must be applauded.
The concept the art is presenting, “Claude Monet in his Studio Boat” presents a seemingly beautiful view of a boat slowly drifting through an unknown body of water near a small port of some kind. On the boat is Claude himself and what appears to be his wife, a lovely couple dressed in fancy white outfits as the artist is trying to capture the view from the boat on his easel held up canvas. The scene’s concept is a beautiful one that leaves the viewer feeling at peace, just like the water the boat gently floats upon. Though there is more detail to cover with the concept of the painting, it will be further discussed with the technique and style. On a personal level, it makes me feel tranquil with a sense of awe as the water and background scenery fills the viewer with a feeling of majesty due to the seemingly sunny and warm day shown in the painting. In contrast to the quote which mentions the painting of moonlight, one can also view the background as sunlight through clouds rendering a wonderful balance of both light and dark to the painting.
The technique and medium of the painting is of the impressionist style which came to popularity in the late 1800s. This style of painting is usually associated with depiction of modern life at the time, as well as usage of thin but visible brush strokes weaved as its technique. Visible brush strokes can be seen in the boat and the sky. The depiction of the city behind Monet with tall smoke-stacked factories captures modern life in Northern France in the impressionistic style.
In regard to technique, Manet’s somewhat rushed brush strokes compliment the style further, allowing the brush strokes to appear as if they are mere slabs of wood that were used to assemble the boat. Utilizing this technique was most likely difficult due to it being an oil on canvas painting. There are aspects of the painting that give the “violin case to violin” expression as the colors and texture of the water resemble that of the boat. The water; however, seems rushed with its technique which is more noticeable in the foreground of the painting. The style adds to the painting’s aesthetic to a great degree as it makes a perfect dark contrast to the brightly colored sky above, reminiscent of the quote’s comparison of light and dark contrast. The oil based medium of the painting also creates a unique texture which adds to the somewhat realistic appearance.
While some might interpret “Your color is not true; all these contrasts of light and dark made me think that you paint the moonlight”, as the lack of color; my interpretation is that the painting contains great depths of contrasting color, rich in cool tones like a blue moon. Manet’s color palette emphasizes shades of blue with small sections of green. The water, boat, sky, and background sailboats present tones of soft blues with splashes of green utilized for the river bank and cypress tree. Darker shadowing contrasts in the water as reflections as well as the dark base of Monet’s boat. Browns and yellows are used in the boat’s top, houses, and factories of modern France. Other tones of whites and beiges are used for Monet and wife’s clothing, sails, and boat canvas. The soft beautiful color palette creates a relaxing and tranquil atmosphere for a mid-day excursion along the Seine River not far from Paris.
In conclusion, Guerin’s quote is one that can apply to many works of art that have been presented in the nineteenth century, but Manet’s “Claude Monet Painting in his Studio” truly captures beauty and nature in Manet’s life studies. Its impressionism style, oil based composition, and quick thin brush stroke techniques culminates in a wonderful painting that captures time spent with one of the famous painters of the impressionist movement and his beautiful wife inspiring the painting. The painting is a tranquil canvas or color and beauty.
Amanda Galvan
Robert Tracy
ART 472/474
7 April 2021
First Opinion Paper
“The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!” – (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur, 1819)
I will discuss this quote in relation to two of Francisco Goya’s paintings: 3rd of May 1808 (1814) and Saturn Devouring his Son (1819). This quote originally described The Raft of the Medusa (1818-19) by Théodore Géricault. This French Romanticism painting depicted tragedy through chiaroscuro and a stark eye for the visuals of death. Goya’s paintings use similar formal qualities to convey the darker aspects of humanity. True to the Romanticism movement, Goya foregoes realistic depiction in order to lean into the emotional effect of the events they portray. Both 3rd of May 1808 (1814) and Saturn Devouring his Son (1819) depict terrifying events, and their formal qualities are meticulously curated to depict the overwhelming despair of facing death.
The first painting I’ll discuss is 3rd of May 1808 (1814). The painting addresses “the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction” through an emotion-driven depiction of the collateral of war on the common people. The most apparent addressing of this is the subject matter: corpses and people about to be killed by a faceless firing squad. Crumpled in the foreground are the dead, marred by explicit gashes and wounds, lying in pools of blood. Goya doesn’t shy away from the harsh reality of war in this painting; this was in stark contrast to the glorified, ornamented depictions of wartime in previous art movements.
The formal qualities of the painting serve to amplify these aspects, through an intentional combination of brush style, lighting, and figure composition. Hurried brush strokes emphasize the immediacy of the moment and the fervent emotion of the scene. The main figure of the painting, the man raising his arms, has eyebrows heavily lifted upwards and visible whites of his eyes. These exaggerated facial features, achieved with only a few brush strokes, emphasize the terror of facing immediate death. In addition, this man serves as a Christ figure. On his right hand is a stigmata- a hole in the palm of the hand typically used to represent Christ and the crucifixion. The man’s importance is bolstered by his clothing, which is brighter than any other figure, and reflects the same colors as the only source of illumination: the square lantern. Through these, Goya implies that the Spanish people were on the side of the light but became martyrs because of the atrocities of war.
The shapes created by both sides of this conflict also reflect despair and death. The diagonal slope of the hill draws one’s eye to the Spanish people huddled at its base in oblong clumps, disorganized and haphazard in their desperation. In contrast, the firing squad stands uniform, in an opposing slope to the hill which the victims cling to. The soldiers’ faces are pointed away from the viewer’s perspective, in juxtaposition to the heavily emotive faces of the victims. This dehumanizes the firing squad and emphasizes the depravity of their cold intentions. The high contrast of the painting draws the viewer’s eye to the illuminated victims, laying out a framework for the story the painting tells. First the viewer notices the bodies and pleading people, most notably the Christ figure, and searches rightward for the cause of their despair.
Despite its dramatized depiction, the “hideous spectacle” depicted by 3rd of May 1808 (1814) was a very real situation during the Peninsular War of 1808-1814. Napoleon conquered Spain in 1808 and brought about an unsuccessful revolt by the Spanish people. In response, French troops killed many civilians, as is depicted by this painting. Although the Spanish government technically commissioned the painting, it was Goya himself who asked to paint it. This shows that Goya was not motivated by a patron or money but rather a visceral depiction of the emotional and physical toil of the Peninsular War on the Spanish people. Goya himself witnessed these executions, making this de tête painting a reflection of his own strong despair and helplessness in the face of political turmoil.
The second painting that I’ve analyzed in the context of this quote is Saturn Devouring His Son (1819). The painting addresses “the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction” in a markedly different way than 3rd of May 1808 (1814). Here, Goya runs with the idea of utilizing “a boldness of handling and color that multiply their effect a hundredfold”. It accomplishes a more conceptual, abstract depiction of depravity through exaggerated expressions, distorted anatomy, and heavy light contrast.
The context of this painting is highly unique. By the time of creation, Goya had suffered multiple illnesses and witnessed a number of wartime atrocities, to the point where his art style made a drastic transformation. He retired to a villa and began painting on the walls. The Black Paintings are 14 oil paintings of fighting, despair, and death. They were never attached to a patron, never given names, and never meant to be seen by the public. After Goya’s death they were painstakingly chipped off the walls and transferred to canvas. Saturn Devouring His Son (1819) was painted in Goya’s dining room.
Goya extrapolates further than his previous 3rd of May 1808 (1814) painting with even more frantic brushstrokes. Much like the Christ figure in that painting, Saturn’s face is marked by the prominent whites of his eyes and highly raised eyebrows. In this painting, however, the eyes stare directly at the viewer of the painting, no matter what angle the viewer takes. They are the brightest objects in the painting, and the viewer is not so much drawn as they are forced to gaze into them. His panicked expression and crouched, unkempt, naked appearance serve to imply insanity, or perhaps even despair at the act he’s currently committing, or a mix of both as a result of the act. The painting explicitly depicts putrefaction through the “Son”. The identity, gender, and even age of the “Son” is indiscernible because of how mutilated they are. The blood on the body is an unnatural vermillion, catching the viewer’s eye from the craze of Saturn’s gaze to the gore of the death he’s caused. Even Saturn’s body, shrouded in shadow, contrasts with the alabaster flesh of his child and emphasizes his impurity and depravity. In addition the unnatural proportions of Saturn’s limbs enhance the feelings of unease.
Unlike both 3rd of May 1808 (1814) and the origin of the quote The Raft of the Medusa (1818-19), the “horrific spectacle” of this painting is an event from Classical mythos: Saturn eating his children to prevent them from overthrowing him. The story’s themes of revolution being quelled resonate with Goya’s past experiences in the Peninsular War and his feelings regarding conflict. The inclusion of blood and panicked expressions is also not new, as seen in his commissioned work 3rd of May 1808 (1814). Yet this painting, and the Black Paintings as a whole, display Goya’s turn into a full realization of Count O’Mahoney’s quote– unapologetic depiction of the deepest debauchery of humanity, intensified exponentially by the masterful use of formal qualities.
Natasha Montes-Gomez
Art 472
Robert Tracy
April 8, 2021
Opinion Paper
It is said that the romanticism movement was emphasized on the source of artistic
experience, in which artists began to explore various stages of emotional and psychological mental states in art. But, it was also a time that art and literature were renowned as a new interest in human psychology, expressing one’s personal feelings and their interest in the view of the natural world. One artist that I will be talking about that had exhibited similar works is Francisco Goya, a Spanish painter and printmaker who is considered as the last of the old masters and the first to modernism. His work reflected the historical and important influenced events during the 19th and 20th century. In a way he responded to his surrounding of daily life, enlightenment, inquisition, and the horrors of war. As well as his bold techniques, haunting imagery, and belief that the artist’s vision is more important than tradition. But, most of all that of his own health that was declining which resulted in his work becoming more pessimistic.
The piece that caught my interest within the PowerPoint lecture was his piece, The Third of May made in 1814 using oil on canvas, that was based during the events of the French invasion. It shows of a night in which citizens were dragged and led to a secluded area and wiped out by a range of firearms. In this piece he portrays the fear within each individual’s expression, leaving the soldiers deprived of no emotion due to no facial identity. “The eyes are the windows to the soul,” by Leonardo Da Vinci, shown throughout Goya’s work that in it he pays attention to detail when it comes to expressing it through the eyes of the individuals he presents in his work. Capturing the individuals expresses emotions through their eyes of what they are going through, even if they are hiding it. With the use of bolder and darker colors of brush strokes within the piece it’s almost as if it was happening in a fast pace or of a flash capture of an image.
One of those few beings is that of a man seen as standing in front with his hands up dressed more noticeable due to the lighting of the light source within the image. Seemingly to look like the main focus, some have said he poses to be a hero ready to stand while blocking the others behind him from harm or that to even a religious stance due to his indent on his hand. Which he seems as though he is nonexistent due to not much detail focused on him. But to me it seems Goya made it seem as though the people in the piece are being treated as animals being killed off where no one else can see nor hear them. With the man’s eyes almost blurred to show how shaken and terrified along with the others who look in despair, anger, or look away to pray. Being lined up and taken out of their homes at night whether they were or were not part of the riots and dragged not knowing what lays ahead of them.
The quote by Count O’Mahony on Theodore Gericault’s, The Raft of the Medusa, “The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect hundredfold….What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!” (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur, 1819) corresponds well towards Goya’s work, especially his etchings. In his, The Disasters of War, series Goya expressed a sense of despair, death, and so forth. Yet, unlike The Third of May, his prints presented a more sinister and illustrated form. Using etching to create his prints gives off a more edgy, bold, and scratchy like texture to create nightmarish drawing. They are more intense, haunting, reflection of both his fear of insanity and outlook on humanity. Focusing on the dreamlike grotesque observation to imaginary and humorous to demonic, but that of protest against violence. They were also about historical events but that of influences towards imagination, emotion, characteristics, and politics. It reflected his originality and true opinions about social and political events.
I have only known Goya for his etchings of countless images of his observations and drawings yet to be seen until years later after his death. His prints started to present the aftermath of war and depictions of capricious subjects such as witches, ghosts, and monsters. It was as if it was a reflection of loneliness and suffering that was caused by his disease. One print being from the PowerPoint lecture called Grande hazana! Con muertos! That some have stated that it means “A Heroic Feat! With Dead Men!,” in this scene there are three dead men roped to a tree, one on the ground, the other hung with his body, and the last butchered and placed in various parts of the tree. Although it is a terrifying sight to see throughout all the prints they still contain a sense of beauty in them. Count O’Mahony’s statement towards The Raft of the Medusa, “What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture! Goya’s prints with the black and white coloration capture that sense through his imagery as a form of documentation.
Compared to The Third of May, It almost seems those individuals look like the same men from the painting. The man decapitated and the one held onto the tree seemed like the ones that the bright light shined upon giving a worried and the other a brave look at the soldiers. As the title is called “A Heroic Feat! With Dead Men!,” these three men could have been those who were at gunpoint, stripped, and left on a tree as their grave. Which brings up the statement most have said about the man in The Third of May being that of a religious figure comes to mind yet again in this scene of the deceased man tied to the tree may have been the same person but we can not tell since his face is downward. So there is no telling if it is really him or just another man that Goya had used to title the piece based on the gruesome placement of their end.
In the form of grotesque illustrations, royal portraits, demonstrates a tortured genius and the story he tells that demonstrate the events during that time in Spain through history. Goya was expressing how he felt during the time of war, events occurring around him and even to the time his mental state was declining due to his disease. He shows through his work the emotions of hunger, deprivation, and misery that destroyed his home land. Even though he was deeply affected by it all, Goya kept his thoughts private but also let out some hints of truth as a royal painter about the royal family. He went beyond and in a bold way created works that were a response towards the conflict and its aftermath that would influence others after him. Though some artists have shown heroic scenes of victory and that which would please the audience, Goya painted the aftermath of the untold side of the story that none were brave enough to tell.
Yele Wagoner
Professor Tracy
Art 472
7 April 2021
First Opinion/Position Paper and Formal Analysis
of Joseph Mallord William Turner’s “Slavers Throwing Overboard the Dead and Dying—Typhoon Coming On”, 1840. Oil on Canvas. 35 7/8” x 54 3/8”.
At first glance my eyes are drawn to the fire red and yellow hues, and the emotion that follows is a sense of urgency. The same sense of urgency experienced when witnessing a fire that is burning out of control. Turner has managed to captivate through his use of color, which serves as a focal point. As the eye darts around the scene, little pieces of a puzzle begin to come together to form a grotesque depiction of chains floating above sinking bodies that are being consumed by swells of ocean and schools of man-eating fish. This piece was ‘inspired by a late eighteenth century account of a slave ship hat threw its cargo of slaves overboard to collect insurance money”. (Eisenmen 2011)
Count O’Mahony’s quote regarding Gericault’s Raft of the Medusa, in Le Conservateur, 1819 can be applied to Turner’s piece, it states,
The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger,
death and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve,
a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect
a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!
Turner’s painterly style is very expressive with quick strokes that define objects in a hurried fashion. The feeding frenzy in the lower right is a perfect example of how these quick strokes are used to vaguely define what is seen as a chaotic disgusting scene of body parts being picked apart by gulls and fish. Varying complimentary hues are used in this scene to distinguish the shapes of the gulls from the fish.
Turner used the intensity of light to divide the picture plane as if parting the sea. This division creates a balance, as if compartmentalizing the chaos into four distinct scenes. Though the values of brown seen in the seascape are similar Turner has made a distinction by decreasing the value of the brown in the ship, as well as other areas in the sea. The use of warm and cool colors adds to the dramatic effect of this story at sea. The passage of time is shown with the ship sailing into a cool whitish-blue hue in the upper-left corner of the picture frame, which informs that the unknown lies ahead. Directly opposite this scene is a calm warm sky, which shows the calm waters the ship left behind. Near the middle foreground of the picture there is a tumultuous scene of horror and terror, where slaves have been cast overboard.
In closing, Turner’s painting is warm with inviting hues that attract the eye, while the subject matter and chaotic scenery is cold and repelling. As the imagery comes together the story intwines into a visually descriptive tale of oppression and greed. In the words of Count O’Mahony,
“What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!”.
Works Cited
Eisenmen, Stephen. Nineteenth Century Art a Critical History. New York:
Thames & Hudson LTD, London, 2011. Print.
Amanda Friedman
Robert Tracy
ART 472.1001
7 April 2021
First Opinion Paper
(Regarding Gericault’s Raft of the Medusa) “The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold… What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture! (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur, 1819)
I find this quote to be probably the best description of The Raft of Medusa. From the painting alone we can see the suffering and agony that this group of people are going through in not only their environment and living conditions but also in their faces and body language as well you can really see the despair. However, when you actually read about the inspiration of this work it really sends the message home of despair and death and hunger and Gericault did such an amazing job at rendering this horrific real life story into a painting that almost brings the viewer in and feels like they are, too, a part of this tragic scene.
The Raft of Medusa, originally named Scene de Naufrage (Shipwreck Scene) painted by Theodore Gericault in 1818-19 was inspired by the actual ship wreck of the French naval ship, Meduse, and the aftermath of it. The Meduse crashed on July 5, 1816, two years before Gericault’s painting, where at least 147 people were piled onto a hurriedly constructed raft in order to survive. Sadly, of those 147 people only 15 survived the 13 days before their rescue ship arrived. Unfortunately, the survivors did not have it easy, they lived through hell for those 13 days and suffered dehydration, starvation and even had to resort to cannibalism to survive.
Gericault was fascinated by this event and did heavy research on it and did multiple sketches and studies before the final piece. He also interviewed two of the survivors in order to get the most accurate version of the raft, he even went as far as to construct a miniature version of this raft in order to get everything perfect for this less than perfect situation. However, I think some of his research went a little too far. It’s said that he visited hospitals and morgues to see first hand the “color and texture of the flesh of the dying and dead” I am all for looking at references but going to a hospital to see a dying person for your artwork is just creepy and unsettling. But, the extensive research worked out in the end because the final product of the piece is just unbelievable. The massive scale of it (16 ft 1 in x 23 ft 6 in) and the level of details he has makes this piece very beautiful despite being such a depressing subject.
Gericault’s figures are honestly breathtakingly beautiful. The details he captures, the muscle definition and shadows and highlights are just immaculate. And the fact that the majority of the figures in the background are basically life size and the figures in the foreground are roughly double that is mindblowing to even imagine when I am only seeing this through a computer screen. One of the coolest things I noticed in this painting is the three figures on the right hand side of the painting and how he handled them. On the very far left is a man laying down that appears to be dead, and probably has been for some time now. His skin is a sickly greyish green color. You can see some of his stomach and you can just start to see the bottom of his rib cage getting more and more defined as his stomach is basically wasting away. He still has muscle mass but his shoulder/clavicle area that is closest to us you can really start to see the skeletal form emerge more than normal. His face is almost peaceful but he also looks sad, his eyebrows are slightly furrowed and his eyes look to be slightly creased like he was just in absolute agony when he died. There is also a man that is laying half over the previous man who also seems to be dead. However, what’s fascinating about these two dead male figures is looking at their skin tones. Both males are dead. We can clearly see that but, the man that is laying over top of the other is significantly paler, meaning that this man has not been dead as long as the other has. His body has no traces of a green/grey tinge to their skin he is just a very pale further proving he is a more freshly dead. There is also a man wearing some type of red cloth over his head. But the difference with this man is that he is alive, his eyes are wide open and staring deadly off into the distance. But his skin is tan and coursing with life. If you look at his arm specifically that is draped and clutching the pale man you can see the difference in the skin colors. And looking at all these three figures together as a unit are just very beautiful together and I really see Gericault use the knowledge he gained from going to the morges and hospitals to study the dead bodies when looking at these three figures.
Gericault also captured the desperation that these people must have felt really well on the figure in the very middle of the raft. Most people are turned away from the viewers trying to flag down a rescue team but this person is half facing us and we can see on their very pale face the desperation, despair and agony on their face. They want this to end and you can almost feel the emotion coming off of them by looking at them. And because of this person alone I can see the desperation that O’Mahony described in this painting.
Xiyuan yu
Robert Tracy
ART 472
7 April 2021
First Opinion Paper WOMAN WITH A PARASOL
“Antiquity has not ceased to be the great school of modern painters, the source from which they draw the beauties of their art.”(Jacques-Louis David, The Painting of the Sabines, 1799) In realition to Monet’s painting: women with the patrol. The woman in the painting is slightly sideways, her skirt seems to be dancing, full of dynamics. She stood in the breeze, elegant and moving. Holding a parasol and walking on the green grass, I feel lazy. The air lingers around her, like a fairy mist, chasing a fairy. The little child next to him is very cute, wearing a sun hat, and is looking ahead. He is just the age to bounce, so quietly showing his head, it is even more lovely. This painting is from the perspective of looking up. The shadows on the ground are shown, and they are connected to the woman in the painting to form a line, which is very complete. The existence of the little boy also highlights the loftiness of the sky and enriches the level of the picture. The color of the picture is very simple, with only light blue, white, green, and yellow. The use of overlapping and complementary colors makes it simple and natural. This painting is more three-dimensional in comparison, the colors are very gentle, and the light and shadow are on the characters. The flow of clouds, the backlight on the women’s clothes, and the shadows here are all perfect. It must also be full of the artist’s deep love for his family. There are three paintings in Monet’s “Woman with a Parasol”. In 1875, Monet used his wife as a model to paint the first “Woman with a Parasol”. The woman is half-sided, and the folds are also rotating because of her rotation, dynamically presenting this subtle movement, and the balance of the woman’s movement is what she holds in her hand. The gray-green tone of the parasol merges with the sky to combine the characters with the picture and make the characters jump out of the background. The clear sky is dynamic before people’s eyes. The little boy in the distance in the picture deepens the layering of the picture, which not only highlights the woman holding the parasol, but also makes the sky in the distance even higher. However, in Impressionism, “light is the real protagonist of the picture”. In this painting, overlap and complement of primary colors are used to form a new painting language. In order to express the dynamic changes of objects and the brilliance and weirdness of light and color, the painter adopts the small brushstrokes and tones. Some colors are no longer adjusted on the palette, but yellow and blue are sometimes overlapping, and the yellow and green, Blue and orange complement each other and make the color create new harmony in the strong visual impact. Light and shadow rely on these two characters to jump and shuttle in people’s eyes. The sky behind the woman is as transparent and changeable as water, as if it can be pierced with a finger. The sun shines on the woman’s dress through the clear blue sky. Because of the light and shadow, the dim tone of the woman’s upper body indicates that she is under the shadow of the umbrella. On the skirt raised by the breeze, there are the light and shadow that Monet is best at capturing-the brilliance of the blue sky, the dark green grass and the pale-yellow flowers around the women’s feet. They contrasted against the woman’s skirt and sleeve elbow. The flowers and plants leaning along the breeze under the woman’s feet seem to be able to smell the fresh scent of soil and flowers. Using fuzzy and large brushstrokes to depict is a major feature of Monet’s painting techniques. In this painting, we can still see the appearance of the woman holding the umbrella, but she and her son who form a triangular shape to stabilize the picture have been simplified to a person with only two black holes and eyes. However, because of this, we don’t have to be entangled in the technique of the picture, but can spend more of our minds on what the picture conveys, in the early morning, the comfort of walking with mother and child, the breeze, and the tranquility and beauty of the blue sky. Therefore, the victory of Impressionism is that it not only opens up a strange way to refresh people, but also that it can record the painter’s own feelings and pass it on to others. It can also be seen that the style of Monet’s early works emphasized momentary sensory colors to build a gorgeous world composed of colors. Breaking through the classicism that restrained painting at the time, liberating painting from purely photographic realism, and opening up a new painting genre that captures the “moment of beauty” with eyes.
Melia Bowles
Art 472
07 April 2021
First Opinion Paper
(Regarding Gericault’s Raft of the Medusa) “The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture! (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur, 1819). This quote, reminded me a lot of the paintings that I learned about during the Turner unit back in February. The paintings that Joseph Mallord William Turner did fit well with this quote to me because he created beautiful paintings, but at the same time, depicted some sort of destruction and violence. I am going to be focusing on The Slave Ship, done in 1840, and The Fighting Temeraire, done in 1838. Both of these paintings demonstrate despair with the use of its imagery and invoking that feeling to its viewers.
The first painting I will be diving into is The Slave Ship which was done by Joseph Mallord William Turner in 1840. This piece did an excellent job of showing something that is a hideous spectacle but in a beautiful way. This painting was depicting the Zong incident that happened in 1781 when the captain of the ship ordered that 132 slaves be thrown off the ship after they had been running low on water and wanted to collect the insurance money for them. This event actually helped to gain more support for the abolition of slavery. For the British Empire, slavery was not fully abolished until 1833. At first glance, this painting just looks like a ship that has been caught in a storm when at sea. When looking at the artwork closer, the viewer can begin to see the chains and the hands of the slaves in the ocean. Birds can be seen flying towards the slaves in the water. The water is starting to become red, presumably because of the blood that the people are losing. The clouds in the sky are also red, giving the painting a much more negative feeling for the viewer. The ship can be seen, floating away from the people in the water, giving the viewer an idea of what is happening. The ship would rather go into the storm than helping the people in the water. Turner liked to show the forces of the elements in a more nontraditional way of landscape painting. The storm looks extremely violent and it can be assumed that even if the people in the water were able to get back up to the surface, the storm would pull them back down. When the viewer knows what exactly the painting is supposed to be depicting, it gives the painting that much more of a darker meaning. The way the sunlight begins to be covered by the grey clouds of the storm that the ship is going into shows that the story of the painting is meant to be dark, even though it is painted in a more “beautiful” way. This painting fits well with the quote because of the idea of something’s story being gruesome and hideous, but the artist is able to show it in a beautiful picture. This painting is currently on display at the Museum of Fine Art in Boston.
The second painting we will be looking at is The Fighting Temeraire, also done by Joseph Mallord William Turner in 1838. This painting is showing the 98-gun HMS Temeraire that played a role in the Battle of Trafalgar being towed in order to be broken up for scrap materials. Turner actually changed the name of the ship to fit with his painting; the crew had called it “Saucy”, not “Fighting”. When I was conducting my research, I learned that it is not known whether or not Turner was actually there to view the towing of the boat, but there were multiple accounts saying that he watched the ship from different places on the river. The viewer may not see the story it is telling at first glance. However, upon closer look, the viewer can actually see the ship being pulled by a tugboat. The two ships have a stark contrast to one another as well as their background. The blues of the sky against the white of the ship makes it appear to be a ghostship, almost a symbolism of its death. The tugboat is very brown, almost rust-like in color, showing it is worn out. The smoke coming out of it however shows that this ship is still being used and will continue to be used. When looking at the two ships up close, we can see another ship in the background going the opposite direction of them, signifying that there isn’t a battle currently happening. To the right of the ship, we can see the sun rising, showing that a new day is going to begin. The clouds and water are both red; it is meant to be a symbolism of destruction. However, on the opposite side, the sky appears to be very calm, making it appear as if there is going to be an end to the destruction that is happening. While this painting is not necessarily showing a sort of destruction at first glance, the viewer can assume that something negative is going to happen because the ship is being towed away, which makes it fit with the quote I chose.
The idea of painting the “most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death and putrefaction” in a more beautiful picture is something that Joseph Mallord William Turner was very familiar with. A few of his paintings showed that he was not unfamiliar with making the obscene into something beautiful by the use of his coloring. The paintings that were focused on demonstrated that. The Slave Ship, although being based on an extremely hideous event, was painted beautifully by the use of his coloring. The Fighting Temeraire, however, was less of a hideous event but was still based on a time of despair. The coloring that was used was meant to show that there was going to be an end to the destruction that was happening; the calm, blue sky was overtaking the red sky.
Jack Torres
Professor Tracy
Art 434 – 1002 / Art 474 – 1001
04 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
Oscar Wilde once said, “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” While this piece is not particularly a portrait but a landscape with figures, I will be taking a look at Thomas Cole’ painting called The Voyage of Life: Childhood which was painted back in 1842. Cole’s painting has such an immersive world any viewer can see when looking at this painting (aside from the other three paintings which relate to this series). Wilde’s quote definitely hits right with Cole in the way the feeling of this painting is based on his own views as the artist rather than the “sitter” or the us as the viewers. It has such a magical feel that man would not be able to see in real life and Cole has created this world from his deep “feeling” onto the canvas for us to admire and immerse ourselves into this story he is trying to tell us.
Cole’s use of contrast really helps emphasize what he wants us to see in this piece which becomes very obvious at first glance. The contrast of the way the light is creating cast shadows in the cave the figures are coming out helps let them stand out with the use of brighter colors. The guardian angel is able to stand out and emit her energy of light into this world which immediately catches my eye when first looking at this piece. Even the baby below her is bright with life and has no worry with the beautiful scenery it is coming out of from the dark cave on the gold boat they are sailing on. There is also a burst of warm colors surrounding the whole environment in this scene which seems to be like the setting of a sunset or even the rise of one. Then we have the use of cool colors of greens and blues coming from the greenery to show us that there is life in this world along with the flowers it has grown.
The overall composition of this piece is very interesting to look at. The way our eyes view this can be compared to the golden ratio. The first thing that catches the viewer’s eye is the subject of the guardian angel on the boat with the baby because of the contrast with the bright white against the nature surrounding them. Then the eye moves out from around the figures and into the scenic view of the nature to the sky or vice versa. Looking at the scenery first will always bring back our eyes to the angel on the boat. Space helps balance the composition overall with the top half almost being filled with the rocky mountains and have a portion of the sky seen to understand the perspective from where we are looking at.
The concept behind this painting can mean anything, but the way Cole presented it this way has me thinking it’s a metaphor of this baby coming into life from such a dark place which is the cave and into this lit up nature of greenery and life. Up at the top left corner we can see a hoard of dark clouds hovering over the rocky mountains before it disappears as it moves further right which is where we see a clear sky is another indication of that feeling. Coming from a dark place and the help of this guardian angel helping let this baby see the day of light and introduce them to a life full of wonders which seems very beautiful to me. I can almost get lost into this world myself just staring into the horizon full of fresh grass and flowers surrounding my feet if I were to walk in it.
To conclude, Cole’s creative imagination helps bring Childhood to life which strongly represents Wilde’s quote where the artist is the one who has the power to show their feeling rather than the person they are painting. In this case, it is not a specific person Cole painted, but a whole story of a world with this guardian angel and baby venturing into this landscape. It makes you wonder where other life forms may be and how far these two have traveled or where they’re traveling. It’s breathtaking and I would wish painted worlds like these could be real to sight see at.
Buddy Wakefield once said, “Stop inviting walls into wide open spaces!” The second piece I will be looking at is the installation piece in the Moynihan Train Hall called The Hive from the duo artists Elgreem & Dragset. Wakefield’s quote strongly reflects Elmgreen and Dragset’s piece in letting their piece shine through in an open space where walls shouldn’t have to be “invited ” into and missing the opportunity to use it for something remarkable. It is unlike any other that I have seen before and would love to see with my own eyes someday. It’s an upside down looking city which definitely catches people’s eyes to want to look up and immerse themselves even for a moment into this piece as they go about their days whether they’re going to work or traveling. This use of space is a great provider for many people to walk through and admire since it’s available to all those that pass.
At first glance, the first thing I see or maybe others will see is the fact that it’s a scaled cityscape hanging upside down. Taking a closer look, there are many shapes that can be detected. Considering we’re looking at it from below, the tops of each of the buildings have distinctive shapes such as squares, circles, triangles, rectangles, hexagons, and other geometrical shapes throughout the whole piece. You can say there’s some pattern into this piece with the repeated shapes we see whether they go from horizontal to vertical. Each of the buildings has its own uniqueness to it from its geometrical stand point as some may seem layered than others that just stand as one whole equal building. There is also repetition and pattern in each of the buildings based on their designs around them whether they are hatched lines going diagonal from each other and overlaying or grid-like.
The use of space in this installation is great as it doesn’t take up the whole ceiling the artists were provided with but limited to the sharp-edged geometric base where the sculptures stand against and hang from the ceiling. It doesn’t overwhelm the viewers passing by to see a while ceiling covered in miniature buildings but within the middle of it while the light around it stands out as a complimentary border. There’s also a nice sense of balance with the positive and negative space where the sculpture of the piece is the positive space and the ceiling itself above is the negative space.
The illuminated buildings have such a calming feel when staring up at them, too. Color is also a play into this sense of “calmness” that doesn’t make anything too chaotic or bring out any other negative emotion. There seems to be around three types of shades in this monochromatic seeming structure. It ranges from white, tan, and greish lights that illuminate the buildings. It could also be the help of the base these buildings stand on since they buildings are reflected from it which sort of makes it seem like this city would also be standing in water. It’s very magical in that sense and can bring up anyone’s imagination in how they see this cityscape full of illuminated lights. They sort of remind me of those huge lanterns people will set out and let them freely float off into the air to bring a mesmerizing light show during the night.
In conclusion, bringing in “walls to open spaces” should definitely be prevented when such amazing art can be introduced to people during their everyday lives. It is a great escape from reality even for a moment to question and understand how a piece is made or even the meaning behind it. Elgreem and Dragset are amazing artists with great craftsmanship to be able to pull off this cityscape and hang it above the ceiling which brings enough life into the space they were given. It gives it a personality that no one could miss even if they wanted to.
Soda Souza
April 8, 2021
Art 472
Prof. Robert Tracy
First Opinion Paper
“The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!” are parts of a review by the critic Count O’Mahony for the Le Conservateur on Géricault’s The Raft of the Medusa. O’Mahony’s review captures the essence and was able to verbally translate Géricault’s intimations of depicting the mix of desperation and despair among the Medusa’s crew members.
When O’Mahony describes The Raft of the Medusa as a “hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture” I find that this phrase could also be applicable to J.M.W Turner’s work; specifically his 1840 piece: The Slave Ship. A painting that depicts the moment after the cruel action against enslaved Africans that were thrown overboard into the sea. Even though we can’t see any of the faces or see the body language from the victims, like we could with Géricault’s work, there is something haunting about just seeing the hands and an isolated leg stretching out to the surface of the water. That sense of helplessness and despair helps elevate the purpose of this piece.
While looking at both Géricault and Turner’s piece, I can’t help but see a similar subject and narrative structures between The Slave Ship and The Raft of the Medusa. One specific similarity is that both artists used real events as their subject for their pieces. Both pieces depict desperate and helpless subjects in the foreground, while a distant ship is seen in the background. However in both Turner and Géricault’s pieces the boats have different correlations; for Géricault’s piece, the distant boat could be a sign of salvation. But in Turner’s piece the boat is the source of tragedy.
On Turner’s technique for creating The Slave Ship, Turner’s use of quick brushstroke and how the waves are endlessly moving diagonally across the canvas encapsulates the violent power of these waves. The endless motion of waves helps illustrate the severity of the chaos during this horrendous event. What pulled my attention towards this piece was Turner’s choice for the color palette, especially for the sky. A majority of Turner’s canvas is taken up by a cloudy sky that has a mix of rich warm colors, a variations od white and a little blue that peaks through the clouds. At a distance, this piece could be seen as just a simple landscape of the ocean with a ship traveling through the waves. But the color that was used to create a warm and appealing sunset suddenly starts to emphasize the real meaning and narrative of the piece.
A piece that I find to be a contrast to the mayhem and tragedy to the events of The Slave Ship, is Turner’s other piece of the same year: Dawn after the Wreck. Despite how the title sounds, this piece has a sense of stillness and a calm-after-the-storm feeling; it’s as if there never was a wreckage. As if the world continues to move on whether it has or hasn’t felt the impact of the wreckage. Another divergence between the title and imagery is how Turner has rendered and what he chose as his color palette for this piece. Though this piece is rendered so loosely, Turner was still able to communicate that we are looking out onto a calm ocean landscape, allowing only a soft haze of blue be the implied motion that a wave is crashing into the shoreline. Compared to The Slave Ship, this color palette is more focused on neutral tones and allows certain colors to be the focus; mostly the blue for the ocean and the yellow used for the first sign of the sunrise. There is no sense of emergency or tragedy. I just find the opposition of title and image to be interesting in this case.
I find it interesting that because of the influence of Géricault’s work seen in this piece, is why I find Turner’s The Slave Ship to fit into O’Mahony’s phrase: “What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!”. Turner was able to capture that sense of dread, but also allow the viewer to understand and feel the tragedy. To allow the viewer to think critically when viewing this piece and to understand the cruelty without having to hold the viewers hand.
One thing is the fact one of the most frequent incentives for applying your credit card is a cash-back as well as rebate present. Generally, you’ll receive 1-5 back with various purchases. Depending on the credit card, you may get 1 again on most expenses, and 5 in return on acquisitions made using convenience stores, gasoline stations, grocery stores and also ‘member merchants’.
Thanks for discussing your ideas on this blog. Likewise, a fairy tale regarding the finance institutions intentions while talking about foreclosed is that the bank will not take my installments. There is a certain quantity of time which the bank can take payments here and there. If you are also deep within the hole, they’re going to commonly require that you pay that payment entirely. However, i am not saying that they will have any sort of installments at all. Should you and the traditional bank can seem to work something out, the particular foreclosure approach may halt. However, when you continue to miss payments under the new strategy, the foreclosure process can just pick up where it left off.
I’m still learning from you, while I’m trying to reach my goals. I certainly liked reading all that is posted on your blog.Keep the tips coming. I enjoyed it!
ART 434/472
Gustave Courbet, The Stonebreakers, 1849, Oil on canvas, 5.4 x 8.4 ft (Gemäldegalerie, Dresden (destroyed))
“Good taste, which is spreading more and more throughout the world, had its
beginnings under a Greek sky…To take the ancients for models is our only way
to become great, yes, unsurpassable if we can.” (Johann J. Winckelmann, Thoughts on the Imitation of Greek Art in Painting and Sculpture, 1755)
I chose this quote because of the inevitable irony, which is not evident until later in Winckelmann’s time. Courbet is one of the artists who proof that Greek’s idea of beauty and the ideal models is not the goal every artist should aim to nor it is unsurpassable. It has always been strange to me that, for example, Renaissance masters would paint their figures as the Greeks mandated only to show us unrealistic muscular bodies. Yet, these were and are considered outstanding works, and for many, very realistic. Don’t get me wrong, I do consider classical pieces outstanding work, but I always have been in my mind that nonsense I described. Which brings me to the next question: what is a realistic painting?
There is the academic answer to that question, as well as the colloquial one. Colloquially would be what I usually hear people said when using that term, and it concludes in the painted figure or object as being similar or identical to the palpable subject. However, when I was studying Gustave Courbet, I started wondering about the real meaning of “Realism”. I got it wrong for a long time when I thought it was only a matter of depicting the subject as close to reality as possible, meaning on its form. Nonetheless, Courbet’s subject matter made me realize that Realism comes from depicting what is real, in opposition to what is ideal, as Classical and Neoclassical art professed.
Thus, the art piece I chose to analyze is Courbet’s The Stonebreakers, one of the clear examples of the artist’s resolution to break the mold and depict what he sees instead of what he thinks it should be. Not focusing on the idea of beauty but of what it is real.
The composition of the piece is pretty simple: two figures in the foreground, distributed symmetrically on it, one on the left and another on the right. In general, the space on the piece seems balanced, where the figures occupy the same space as the field, and they are placed in the middle of the horizontal line, which also makes the orientation of the composition horizontal. There is no much going on in the background, since it is just a dark field, resembling shade on the field, suggested by the diagonal glimpse of light on the structure or wheat field on the ridge. Sometimes my mind considers this dark area in the background to be a burned field. In contrast to it, the foreground is brighter and filled with distinct figures and objects. Both the field and the figures offer the same level of detail, which makes them blend. This includes the texture on the rocks, the ground, the wheatfield, the pickaxe, and more. It makes the objects easily recognizable. These aspects add to the realism of it.
Another unusual aspect is the absence of facial features: the artist opted to hide the faces of the figures. Essentially, we don’t need to see their faces. We do not need to identify them. Besides, keeping their faces hidden from the audience makes the figures even more real. Other elements in the piece tell us more about the scene, without the need for facial expressions. For example, the tattered clothes, including the patches, contribute more to the backstory of these men: the work they do is rough. After knowing that, it makes sense to assume that the body posture of the young man shows struggle to carry the basket full of stones. The old man, on the other hand, seems more pausable and calm, which denotes his experience on the field. With these mentioned details, Courbet offers more insight into the realist part of his painting, which indeed was considered direct and crude.
About the color palette used by Courbet, they are mostly warm colors, like a sort of amber filter that unites all the elements. The lines on the painting are sharp to define the stones and other objects lying around, but they are thicker on the figures. It flattens the figures on the picture plane. Another element that reinforces the flattening of the figures is the profile pose of the old man because it barely shows depth. However, the diagonal position of the young man offers dynamism and strengthens the depth of the piece, and balances the painting. Additionally, this diagonal position of the left figure suggests movement, because it suggests he is in the middle of an action, which is carrying the basket of stones. We can also get the same sensation from the diagonal position of the old man’s tool, suggesting he is about to break some stones, hence the title.
Another element that adds depth to the painting is the shade cast by the light source, which appears to be where the viewer is because it places the wheatfield between the foreground (figures) and the background (dark field). That being said, the background would represent a muddy or burned field, since the light source would not permit it to be a dark field as suggested previously.
Speaking of shades and depth, the values in this piece are strong, presenting a high contrast between the foreground and background.
It is not surprising that we find mostly organic shapes in the painting because Courbet only depicts nature and the man working on it. Geometric shapes would appear if there were any man-made structures present or something similar. The organic aspect of the whole painting adds even more realism to the piece.
Indeed, The Stonebreakers is a remarkable piece by Courbet, that it is simply what it is: a memory of something the artist saw. There is no much more into it. I could use it as an example of the peasant world as probably someone might have done, but its appeal falls in the simplicity of it and the powerful opposition it represents against the established parameters of the Art Institutions.
Returning to the chosen quote, I was thinking of the irony of a successful artist who rejected the Greek models for his art. It does not have to be beautiful, and it is not a matter of good taste or not. Art has multiple windows, each one revealing a different place. It is that diversity in Art that makes it stronger. Perhaps it would have been easier to use Winckelmann’s quote along with a Neoclassical painting, proving the point he makes. However, that would mean I agree with the superiority of Greek models in modern, and contemporary art, which is not the case. I love the contrast or opposition in matters. It only shows us that there is more than one mass of thought in the world and that is what should persevere.
Danielle Thompson
Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001 & ART 472-1001
03/16/2021
First Opinion Paper
For this opinion paper, I will be reviewing four paintings from two separate courses, ART- 472 & 474. The quote I have chosen for 472 is “The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!” (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur,1819) I will be looking at Joseph Mallord William Turner’s Burning of The Houses of Parliament, 1834 and The Slave Ship, 1840, because they both demonstrate destruction and disaster that are displayed in a manner that does not place importance on exact imagery but instead on igniting a feeling through color and fluidity that makes one hear the sounds of fire and screaming but still awe at the beauty of the painting.
For Art 474, I will be using the quote “A history painter paints man in general; a portrait painter, a particular man, and consequently a defective model.” (Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses, 1769-9) and reviewing Thomas Cole’s The Arcadian or Pastoral State, c. 1836, second in The Course of Empire series and Consummation, 1836, third in The Course of Empire series. The quote will guide my review of how Cole, during a time of portrait painters, was pulled away from the strict European landscapes and instead place a sense of woundedness in his paintings. Coles’ intentional disregard of the European constraints resulted in a history painter that did not paint the man in general but used imagination to pull history and landscapes out of his mind and onto a physical substance all could enjoy. I have chosen to review these four paintings because they both strain an importance in not displaying exactly as one sees, and instead emphasizes the spirit of their landscape.
Count O’Mahony’s quote measures up with Turner’s paintings as they are both beautiful pictures but depict hideous spectacles. The Slave Ship, at first glance, appears as a beautiful sunset or sunrise over the ocean painting. Looking closer, human forms, debris, and chains appear to be floating in the ocean. The human leg bobbing out of the ocean in the bottom right corner wears a chain around its ankle, and considering the painting’s title, it would be pretty hard for anyone to assume a happy ending from this painting. It, unfortunately, makes one realize that not only did these people die at sea as slaves, but had they made it ashore, their lives would not have been their own. Bringing forth a most somber feeling of anger from such as igniting painting. The Burning of the Houses of Lords and Commons brings forth a slightly less disturbing scene. Although uncontrolled fire can be detrimental to a city, there are no human forms depicted in this disaster. I believe Turner painted this to depict the passing of an old order, and the cyclone of smoke and fire reaching high into the sky not only takes up a large portion of the painting due to the reflection of it in the water but expresses just how hot that fire was. Although sirens did not exist yet, I can hear fire trucks and ambulances in the distance when I look at the center top. I believe this is because the rest of what one can see is a peaceful-looking harbor and city. The fire is in the middle of this bland, quite-looking harbor, giving a devastating effect. Both of Turner’s works have an almost identical color palate; only The Slave Ship has a potent red, from the sunset, and possibly blood. These contrasting color plates allowed for Turner to express real scenes of disaster through his own vision.
Cole was quoted that “the History of a Natural Scene, as well as an Epitome of Man; Showing the natural changes of Landscape and those effected by Man in his progress from Barbarism to Civilization-to the state of Luxury- to the vicious state or state of Destruction, etc.” (148) certainly explains the Course of Empire Series. However, on closer inspection of the paintings, we can see just how much detail Cole placed in these two categories of Civilization, The Arcadian or Pastoral State, 1869, and Luxury Consummation, 1836. In the Arcadian or Pastoral State, we see not only an abundance of nature but also man-made buildings and people playing, working, and walking in nature. This painting shows a co-exists of nature and humans, a growing civilization. The architecture in the background, although at first glance it looks to be a Colosseum-like building, it turns out to be a more primitive Stonehenge-like structure. The smoke fuming up towards the sky suggests a civilization or gathering of more people, a community, at the structure. There appear to be a few farming equipments such as a man with a hoe and a shepherd herding sheep in the center, a way for Cole to demonstrate the cycle of hunting and gathering individual to community farms, vineyards, and trade, which could easily be symbolized by the boat in the bottom, middle of the painting. There looks to be someone playing the flute on the right side of the painting and two girls perhaps dancing. This could signify that civilization is no longer on the frontier or in survival stages but developed enough to allow for the time for leisurely hobbies and exploration of the arts. Cole’s painting perfectly executes a calm, peaceful civilization that has grown to be a community and not individual survival. The use of color and shading gives it a glow that says there is more on the horizon, that this was not the state of luxury, but it was the beginnings of one.
Cole’s Consummation, 1836, although many have thought of it as the state unfolding in this painting Cole has used his imagination to grab a glimpse of what could have been at the height of the Roman Empire. As I know from Roman history class, Augustus Caesar and his successors never actually called themselves Emperor, but instead, Prince translated to First Citizen. However, the Prince was the most powerful, holding a multitude of positions, including the new Chief of Military, that place the soldier reliance back in Rome instead of on their generals. Caesar’s creation of pensions for soldiers and expansion of senators to flood out those opposed to him did lead to a dictatorship; this dictatorship made peace for almost 200 years, although not all 200 of those years were good. Cole captured this peace and luxury at the height and beginning of Augustus’s rule in his use of architecture. The statue of Minerva with her victory hand was a symbol of not only a city built on conquering but also what only highly organized cities have, religion and its practices. Beliefs existed everywhere, but religion was only found in places where priests and priestess could practice, be supported, documented, learned, and educate others. The harbor is filled with ships suggesting a large trade. No longer were the days of trading with nearby villages. Now there are businessmen, banks, taxes, and marketplaces. Cole’s attention to the Corinthian columns, molding, cresting, pediment, and statues compared to the prior painting speaks strides in the luxury this city has compared to the community in The Arcadian or Pastoral State. This is the Consummation of luxury of the ancient age, community living at its highest form. With not only food and time for arts but entire buildings and careers built for all forms of arts.
(This paper is for both ART 472 and ART 474)
Jacqueline Garcia
Robert Tracy
ART 472一1001/ART 474一1001
March 22, 2021
Family of Charles IV
I decided to choose Family of Charles IV (1800) by Francisco Goya as I feel there are many points of direction to dissect this piece. Goya, as an artist, provides insight from an eye who is teetering from being an old master and one of the first modern artists. Goya is also known for his portraiture as he was the Court Painter for the Spanish Crown. But, Goya’s portraiture is far more than just a pure depiction of the subject, or subjects, he is painting. Goya is clearly a gifted painter; he is able to to take what his eye sees and accurately translate that on a canvas. But aside from that, his portraiture is narrative. Upon further looking at one of Goya’s pieces, especially Family of Charles IV, one can see the story Goya is trying to convey to the audience. And I want to emphasize that this is Goya’s story. “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). Through his skillful subtleties shown in the figures’ gestures, composition, lighting, etc, Goya shows his feelings, and possibly his opinion, on the Spanish royal family. It’s as if Goya places this narrative layer over the natural depiction of the subjects. “Your color is not true; all these contrasts of light and dark make me think that you paint by moonlight, and as for your life studies, they resemble nature as a violin case resembles a violin.” (Pierre Guerin, quoted in Batissier, Biographiede Gericault, in La Revue du XIX Siecle, 1842). I like to think of it as this “casing” that is molded to fit the look and shape of what Goya is looking at. This particular painting is this molded casing made to visually resemble the Spanish royal family, but by opening the casing you begin to see the underlying story laid into the painting.
An important detail in this painting to acknowledge before looking at the rest of the painting is the fact that Goya is present in the painting. In the left side of the painting, hidden in the shadows of the piece, Goya’s face is seen in the background. He is painted actually in the process of painting the actual piece; the canvas is also seen in the corner with him as well. One can see that Goya took inspiration from pieces like Las Meninas (1656) by Diego Velázquez. In this particular painting, what makes Goya himself being in the piece so important is that it shows that this portrayal of the family is coming from Goya’s perspective. And by portrayal, I don’t just mean visual portrayal, but how he views them as people; “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). So when viewing this piece it is important to note that this painting is laced with Goya’s feelings on the Spanish royal family, not the feeling’s of the family themselves.
That being said, now I feel like I can begin my dissection of the painting. One of the things that I personally notice first is the garments that the Spanish royal family is painted in. They are covered in lavish clothing, the women are adorned in jewelry, and the men are covered in sashes and shiny medals. To me this works as a sort of layer, the “casing” I was referring to; “they resemble nature as a violin case resembles a violin.” (Pierre Guerin, quoted in Batissier, Biographiede Gericault, in La Revue du XIX Siecle, 1842). Portraying the subjects like this does two things in my opinion. One, it portrays them visually accurately. These people are obviously royalty. Their grand attire is a given. Second, it sort of works as this distraction. At first glance, the royals would look at this piece and admire this representation of themselves; it makes them look like well, royalty. Perhaps it would stroke their ego quite a bit. It gives an acceptable depiction of the Spanish royal family. By distracting the royals by giving them what they want, Goya is then able to sneak in a less admirable characterization of the Spanish royal family.
Peel away the royal and jeweled attire layer, you begin to see how Goya possibly really feels about the Spanish Crown. Portraits for the rich and wealthy, especially at the time, were meant to be idealized. Goya gave them that by having them dressed in riches. Where Goya “sneaks” in this satirical viewpoint on the family, is through facial expressions, gestures, and composition. Starting with the Queen, placed in the middle of the canvas, I think it’s fair to say that her face is not depicted in the most flattering way. It’s craned back as if she is repulsed by something or someone? Then there’s the way she is holding her children. Yes, she has an arm around her daughter and is holding the hand of her son, but through gestures there’s still this detached feeling. It’s as if she’s trying to peel away from her daughter. And there is this distance created between her and her son through her extended arm. It’s like “I will hold your hand, but stand over there.” Holding his hand because she feels that she has to, not because she wants to. Perhaps this speaks to the distance that is felt between the Spanish royal family and the Spanish commoners? Perhaps that’s also why Goya is placed almost hiding in the shadows, obscured from the light. He was the Primer Pintor de Cámara, an official Spanish Court painter, but that does not make him an equal among the royals. Compared to them, he is nothing more than just an employee to them.
Moving on to the man in charge, the King. What I find interesting is the fact that the King is not placed in the center of the piece or in a way that brings focus to him composition wise. He is slightly more in the foreground of the piece, but even so one would believe that a king would be depicted in a way that garnered more attention. Then there’s his face. Again, it isn’t depicted in the most flattering and idealized way. At the time, portraits meant for kings or leaders usually have them portrayed in a heroic manner. Here, King Charles IV’s face looks rather lost and unfocused. And his gaze doesn’t help. There’s something almost wonky in the direction of his eyes. If this were a photograph, he looks like he was caught off guard and wasn’t ready. Actually, some of the other members of the family look that way as well, like they were not ready for a photo to be taken. Gazes looking all over the place.
Overall, many of them look almost like caricatures. As if Goya purposefully decided to poke fun at the Spanish royal family. And this could say a lot about how Goya actually feels about the royal family. If he truly felt any reverence for the royals, I would assume he would have made the decision to depict them in a more put together manner; focused gazes, heroic stances, softer facial expressions, especially on the women. But, no instead we get a kind of satirical take on the Spanish royal family. In the end, Goya managed to make a portrait that would satisfy the Spanish court on a surface layer by covering them in their lavish attire. But, we also see how he and probably the rest of the Spanish civilians felt about their rulers. This painting almost feels like an inside joke that is being made among Goya and the Spanish commoners. This painting overall shows that while portraits are meant to capture the look and essence of an individual or individuals, it is overall still the work of an artist. And whether intended or not, an artist’s work is a reflection of what they feel.
Ryan Roberts
ART 474 1001/434 1002
Robert Tracy
Copley and Boy With a Squirrel
Self-portraits is an art style that has and will continue to be a great way of depicting people of who they are or represent what they love doing the most. An artist that shows an excellent example of who people through paintings is John Singleton Copley. Copley was easily one of the most aspiring and captivating artists of his time, he was somebody who paid close attention to every detail that there could possibly be and that is something I believe was a huge game-changer for the art community. Capturing anything from a person’s facial expression to their body movements was important back then because that is what defined that person in the painting. Unlike photography portraits, there isn’t that same feeling you normally get from looking at a painting because I believe that when a portrait is painted more emotion comes out from the artist, in contrast to simply snapping a photo of someone. The one-piece in mind that had caught my attention is titled, “Boy With a Squirrel”, this painting was completed in 1765 and a portrait of Henry Pelham, who happens to be Copley’s stepbrother. This portrait is an example of why Copley was so talented and his work was immaculate because of the careful use of detail he did. The quote that I found fitting for Copley and his work is said by an English nobleman named Lord Chesterfield, who stated, “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man”. I believe that this quote resonates with all of Copley’s portraits because always seemed to achieve a great fashion to show who that person in the painting was.
Within this portrait, Copley did not do this for a commission piece but in fact, he did this for an exhibition. Although this painting resembles his commission pieces in a similar fashion there are small elements that classify as a personal piece. For example, the way he has Henry is subtle, and compared to his commission the people perceive him to be more in tune with his surrounding them. One major element I noticed in this portrait of Henry is that Copley decided to go with a side view rather than his normal frontal depiction and showing a little leisure with the gesture of Henry’s body language as well. This view, in my opinion, is excellent and shows a certain level of intellect, the boy is shown in a gazing matter which portrays the whole painting in a unique presence, as it makes us wonder what could be so intriguing in the direction Henry is looking upon. The overall facial expression being made in this painting, everything from the way his head is slightly tilting to the small opening of his mouth looks like a dreamy experience he is having from what he is gazing upon. Something that I believe adds to this painting to show a level of delegate is the way his hand is placed and how it is holding the chain. He is not holding it with a clenched fist or just with his fingers, the chain simply runs throughout the hand, and with those curves and loops, it reflects a lavish feeling. From the oval on the chain all the way to the squirrel where we see it nibbling on the chain along with a few crumbles too. I believe the chain presents itself as a leading line perhaps because it definitely makes for the viewer to follow the line, and Copley did a great job with that small feature.
Another delegate detail that Copley did well on was the reflections from his clothing, the squirrel, the glass of water. Even though those are not a huge part of the painting, it still receives great attention from viewers because that gives me the impression that the table has a nice stained finish, which gives that elegant reflective look. Speaking of small yet amazing details that were done to this portrait is the squirrel. By taking a closer look at the squirrel shows off what Copley could really do when it came to small elements like that, and we can almost see every strand of fur on that squirrel resembling a feeling that makes us know that the mammal has a soft like fur. The color of it is overall perfect with its dark and light fur, dark whiskers, the large eye with a nice touch of white highlights, the snow-like belly, and bushiness of the tail. Examining those details of the painting is what I find to be most impressive about this early work of Copley’s because again, I truly believe that this painting demonstrates the amazing talent Copley had to offer during his time as an artist.
Copley is also known to be a master at painting draperies and within this painting, he presents that extremely well. Taking a look at the background of Henry, there is a rich red background that Henry is put up against, and the color of his clothing compliments everything so well. Behind the red drapery, we also can see a small glimpse of a wooden wall which contrasts with the drapery and the table quite well, even though that is a very small part of the painting. He wears a midnight blue coat that has a satin pink collar attached to it which also gives a representation of lavish clothing. Then followed by that he is wearing a yellow vest that covers most of the white shirt tucked underneath it, and the cuffs coming out from the coat have a subtle but nice contrast throughout all of the clothing. I noticed that the clothing and drapery have soft lighting and I can tell that Copley was really trying to emphasize that element in this painting because much like the reflections on the table the lighting in both grab your attention. Going back to the cuffs, the detail is incredible there because he gives us that ruffle looks along with shadows. I feel that Copley went all out on this painting and I would say that it is probably his best work.
Returning to the quote that I had chosen for this when it mentions “inside of the heart and mind man”, I see that throughout this painting of Henry Pelham one hundred percent because while observing this painting it brings your attention to what he is possibly staring at in such a dreamy way. Copley’s portraits of course always did an amazing job of capturing the true image behind whoever it was he was painting. I believe one word that I would describe this painting would be, mysterious, and I say because how Henry is positioned looking off into a distance definitely feels mysterious but in a way, people should truly take the time and examine the painting. Now talking about the first half of the quote when it mentions that, “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure”, that first statement greatly describes what kind of artist Copley was. He never focused on the basic elements when it comes to painting any sort of portrait because in all of his paintings they show emotion, the emotion that feels natural and true. When I was examining this painting of Henry I did feel like the body language that was painted felt raw and real, and not staged, which is something all portraits should seem like because that will make the viewer feel more invested in the painting.
Overall, this painting, “Boy With a Squirrel”, represents one of the most skilled paintings Copley had to bring to the table and felt like he went all-in with the talent he has. Everything from color, lighting, reflections, and small details truly shows us Copley was ahead of the game in the art community. Portraits nowadays are always great to see but mainly we see them in the form of photographs and not so many paintings, and I believe more people should get their portraits done by a painter because for me that represents a stronger connection between the artist and their model. This painting by Copley reflects such great imagery as to who Henry Pelham and that is I believe makes a more powerful and meaningful portrait is finding that connection because having a relationship with your model will have a touching story later in life.
Ziad Abou-Nasr
Professor Robert Tracy
Art 474 – 1001
23 March 2021
Analysis of the Heart and Mind of Man
Of all the quotes provided, I think the one that resonates the strongest with me is the following by Lord Chesterfield, which reads “by portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” To me, this multifaceted line carries a lot of weight and meaning to it. Before I dive into any particular pieces, there’s a few implications to this phrasing that go far beyond simple portraits; this quote by Chesterfield can be used to describe much of painting as a whole, albeit portraits, landscapes, whole scenes, and even architecture. What is being described by Chesterfield is nuance, passion, and the desire to not just capture what is being observed, but to capture the entirety of the moment as a snapshot of time, one to be revisited and experienced by hundreds of others all around the world. For the sake of my perspective, I will be focusing on two pieces: A Boy with a Flying Squirrel (Henry Pelham) by John Singleton Copley and Fanciful Landscape by Thomas Doughty.
Starting off we have A Boy with a Flying Squirrel (Henry Pelham) by John Singleton Copley, the closer of the two to a portrait as mentioned in the quote in the previous paragraph. There is a lot going on in this scene to put it bluntly. The painting is of Copley’s step-brother, Henry Pelham, which right off the bat implies that there is a bit of personalization going into this painting. Every tiny nuance and detail conveys so much about such a minute moment. The slight fiddling of Pelham’s right hand conveys plenty about his personality, with the slight delicacy of his pinky, the dainty grip of his thumb and index finger on the chain, and the flick of his wrist. We can gather he is a bit frail, almost in a regal sense. The way his shirt is frilled around the neck, however, still implies a boyish ruggedness, almost as a way to tell the audience he is still a young man who is learning his way in the world. The emphasis on texture gives us a sense of privilege, with silks and felt being primary focuses. And of course, we would be remissed should we ignore the flying squirrel. The small rodent grasps the chain that young Pelham is holding. There is a sense of bond, a link between the two, a nuance of friendship and connection just through this one chain. All the while, the rodent has a humour to it’s inclusion. Pelham’s eyes are also locked staring at something, almost trying to hold a straight face and seemingly getting tired, yet it mimics his little companion buddy. Also, In the powerpoints, there is a shot where Pelham’s eye is zoomed in on, which I feel allows us to hyperfocus on his gaze in a way we may have missed otherwise. This, to me, highlights the slight fatigue, spaciness, and near distracted emotion in his eyes. This painting is by definition a painting of an individual with various background elements, but upon closer inspection you can find a lot of soul buried deep in the smallest details, even down to the lighting chosen. It feels like Copley knows a lot about his step-brother/subject, it feels like he wants us to know him, and it overall just feels really personal.
Fanciful Landscape by Thomas Doughty is a piece I wanted to discuss because of the latter part of my point: people are not a requirement for such a level of intricacy and depth. This painting is a preservation of nature. It is a showcase of beauty. The painting, though in a fairly centralized locale, displays so many aspects of the environment in a single frame. There is what appears to be summer-time foliage as the focus, with rivers, dirt-coated river beds, mountains, snow, and even the world of the manmade. The lighting is angelic, and almost like that of a prehistoric depiction of the world, almost as if it’s aware of its timelessness. It feels tangible, yet extinct. There is movement shown in the painting, both in the currents and the clouds, but it is a generally lovely day as there are no waves in the river and the leaves look to only slightly sway. The time of day seems like it was a lucky circumstance as well, as though the painting started in the daytime and progressed to this phase as Doughty was working. A moment of peace has been immortalized, and even further so by it’s sheer lack of people. It feels nearly untouched, with the exception being the omnipresent force that is that of the manmade. Something I made note of in the previous paragraph was just how strong texture can convey emotion, and that remains true in this painting. There is a realism to it, it feels like the clouds are dreamlike and the leaves are the perfect amount of wet and crisp. The dirt and sand feel like it would flow a little, but still be hard enough to confidently walk upon. The water is refreshing and cool, but there is enough current where you could feel the rush of water upon your feet. The rocks ooze of erosion, a detail that Doughty didn’t need to include but in doing so really made this work feel immersive.
Overall, I feel the amount of emotion and intimacy captured in a work of art transcends even the subject of the piece itself. Whether or not there are people in the artwork itself becomes irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, just the amount of power behind it can be refreshing and connecting. I easily agree with Chesterfield, a strong work of art can let you peek into the “inside of the heart and mind of man.”
For formatting and such:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YKglZMvJRD95XlDC-up0QI9Fxc3j4ZAFYtowZMgZOw/edit?usp=sharing
First Writing Assignment – Art 674
We should never perceive or recognize art of architecture at their face value. For it is when we classify them simply as how they are presented on their facades – or as simply paint brushed onto the canvas – that we lose sight of the depth, detail, and intention that the artist and designers put into these works. While the painting and the architectural work that is presented to the viewer may be one that is aesthetically appealing, there is more work that is done by the designers than simply putting brush to canvas and pencil to drafting paper (or in this day and age, mouse to 3D drawing application). It takes a lot of research, studying, and thinking about the subjects and projects at hand in order for these artisans to even begin to give life to their projects.
For portrait painters, some may spend weeks to months or even years studying their portrait subjects. It’s within this time spent with their subject that they learn about the things that many do not see on the outside – the things that most people who only know the subject by name have no clue of knowing. For portrait painters, this time allows them to get to know their subjects true inner colors. They find out the things that make them who they are, how they carry themselves, how they act in the public eyes and how they act behind the privacy of their closed doors. It’s with this research that they are able to paint their subjects in a light far brighter and more intense than the one that is lit on the exterior.
For architects, they go through the similar process of extensive research to learn not only about their potential project at hand but also the precedents of architectural works similar to their own, and the details about their project site and the people they believe their project will benefit. All this precursory research is important at every part of the design process as this research creates guidance for the design execution. For architectural works, while they’re also aesthetically pleasing on the inside, it’s how the spaces within the project are developed that really make the project what it is.
“By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (English nobleman Lord Chesterfield, in a letter dated 1747). When we talk about these portraits, what really makes them these great works of art is the detail that the artist puts into their work. This is how the portrait truly captures the likeness of the subject – it is partly the depiction of visual and physical likeness but also the artist’s depiction of the characteristic likeness.
When thinking about intentions and interpretations of portraits and artwork, the first work that came to mind was Thomas Cole’s: The Course of Empire series that includes five paintings depicting the history of a site and how the landscape changes due to nature and the impositions of human interactions and evolutions. Cole paints beautiful landscape portraits in all stages of the series and when one looks hard enough, they are able to see Cole’s intention in each portrait and the story that develops as one follows the sequence. The landscape at peace to the rise and fall of itself and those who live on it.
In the first portrait, The Savage State, Cole depicts the untouched landscape, one that isn’t changed due to the natural world. Following the path of the hunter – depicted on one side of the portrait – we can see the formation of a civilization. Natives surrounded by dwellings while they themselves surround a fire. Here the landscape is at power and those who dwell on it, try to survive without much alteration made to nature. The painted storm rolling in could quite possibly be Cole’s foreshadowing of the impact of civilization on the natural landscape.
The second portrait, The Pastoral State, shows that the storm is gone and we can see how the landscape has changed to make room for agriculture and farming. At the outer edges of the portrait we can see how the trees are now only stumps freshly cut down – probably used to make boats or dwellings for sustainability purposes. We see many more people inhabiting the landscape this time and even a stone building makes itself known in the distance. But here the people and the land are equals, none overpowers the other and they work here in harmony.
The third portrait, Consummation, shows what has become of the clearing that Cole had depicted in the first painting. We’ve come a long way from the fabric pitched dwellings that we once saw there as society has moved towards creating the stone columns to hold up the roofs of their temples. There are far more people inhabiting the painting – and alongside the temples in the portrait they take up much of the scene. The landscape in this scene is barely noticeable; though we see the river it is overtaken by boats and in the distance we only see a sliver of the cliff that was depicted in the first portrait as it is overtaken by buildings.
In the fourth portrait, Destruction, we see the collapse of civilization as it’s happening due to enemies overthrowing the city. The structure of civilization is crumbling, the previously depicted peaceful river becomes turbulent – destroying the ships that sailed upon them, the sky is grey due to the smoke from the fires erupting from the palaces, and the people inhabiting the once calm site are fighting to the death amongst each other. Here we see the collapse of the landscape due to the civilization that imposes itself upon it.
The final portrait, Desolation, shows the ruins of the site once depicted only centuries later. After everything the site has been through it is now in desolation – or more so the things that were built upon it. There is no trace of anyone still living there and we can see that the landscape once again is in charge of the site. Vines and reads are growing up the ruins and overall the natural becomes more visible than the built. The river is calm and the sky is beginning to clear again. Cole closes his portrait series with things beginning to turn back to what it once was in the savage state.
Alysia Moreno
Professor Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001
ART 472-1001
24 March 2021
Relationship Between Artist and Sitter
“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). John Singer Sargent remained true to portraying his perception of sitters in portraits, not theirs. Sargent’s portraits of art patron and longtime friend, Isabella Stewart Gardner, illuminates the proposal that portraits are more captivating when the artist carries an emotional connection with the sitter. This notion also coincides with the proposition that a portrait is not reflective of who is being painted, but ruminative of the artist’s feelings towards that individual. In Sargent’s oil painting of Gardner’s two years after they were acquainted and his watercolor painting two years before her death, he captured not Gardner’s perception of herself, but his perception of Gardner. It is courageous and genius of Singer to be capable in capturing actuality in the individual rather than the vanity.
Isabella Gardner was captivated by the Sargent’s work such as El Jaleo and Madame X, both works that are considered risqué and provocative. Two years after they were acquainted, Sargent painted his first portrait of her. It is said that Gardner had Sargent re-render her face eight times, making him grow frustrated towards. Her personality was stated to be hyper, direct, and demanding. Sargent was able to capture the tension in her expression, along with formidability in her posture. Her gaze is discerning, her stance is representative of her determination. The characteristic of stubbornness and unwilling to yield can be felt through her expression as well. Gardner admired a past painting of done by Sargent, Madame X, and wanted her portrait to be done in a similarly progressive portrait of herself. This request to be portrayed in Sargent’s style ultimately deemed it provocative by some, including Gardner’s husband, who asked her to not publicly display this portrait. However, just because Singer may have portrayed Gardner as sensuous, he presented her as powerful, a force to be reckoned with, and almost as a deity. He is exploiting her formidable presence, but not in a way that displays her as something she is not. In the portrait, Isabella Stewart Gardner, Gardner wears a plain black dress that goes against Venetian dark red background. The black dress and her shadow underneath start out deeply dark, but begin to dissipate upwards towards the immaculate design behind her. The glorious design is painted eloquently, forming what appears to be a nimbus behind her head. This halo/nimbus depicted on this lavish design is not only representative of Gardner’s status, but also representative of Sargent’s feelings of respect towards Gardner.
John Sargent’s last portrait of Isabella Gardner was done two years before her death, following a serious stroke she endured. She was in her eighties. Mrs. Garner in White illustrates her wrapped in a sea of white sheets, beautifully wafted over her. Her fragility and affliction is obvious, but so is her unbreakable demeanor. The color palette of this water color painting is soft, almost angelic, and illuminates Sargent understanding that this will probably be the last time he will paint her. Sargent’s ability capture the resilience and buoyancy in Garner’s expression even though she is obviously sick is proof that an artists work painted with deep emotion is painting reflecting their inner selds. Sargent captured the true essence of Garner’s manner because of their ongoing friendship that has lasted decades. Sargent’s father also suffered and died from a stroke, making him even more sensitive to Garner’s state. The mood of this painting is still and subdued. It is almost like watching speckles of dust pass through a gleaming beam of sunlight through a window seal. A blissful, tranquil moment in time that will soon be gone forever, but it exists right now, and in knowing this, there is a sense of calm. Garner had this to say about her portrait, “a water-colour, not meant, I hope, to look like me”.
The two portraits done of Isabella Gardner, the first done in oil two years after she was introduced to John Sargent, and the second done in watercolor two years before her death, purely represents the notion that every portrait is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not the sitter. On a technical level, Sargent’s first portrait of Gardner holds the same emotion and resemblance of portraits painted of monarchs, rulers, and individuals in command. While the commanding expression in her face is noticeable, it illustrates to the viewer that there is a sense of either intimidation, frustration, or sense of hierarchy. Her posture is almost lunging toward you at eye level giving off a sense subduing. The level of detail of the dark red backdrop gives a feeling of royalty, wealth, or power. Dark reds and blacks against her light pale skin make her appear menacing. This portrait of her is representative of how Sargent felt about Gardner at the time. A fact to remember is the Gardner did make Sargent re-render her face eight times along with her inability to stay still, so he was growing extremely tired of her and possibly could have given up if she was not of such high status and high paying patron.
Yet the friendship between Gardner and Sargent lasted up until Gardner’s death. Now Sargent is able to reflect himself and his admiration for Gardner into a portrait that not reflects her vision for herself, but his vision of her. Compared to perspective of his first portrait of her, a strict, sensuous, commanding force to be reckoned with, he depicts her as a soft, calm, and wise. Her presence is still there, but the intimidation is gone and it is not just because she is about to die, but it is because he loves her. Being able to illustrate her demeanor as a strong woman when she’s wrapped in sheets, sick and dying, was not a representation of she was in that moment but how Sargent felt about her in the moment. This ability to positively illuminate a person as strong when they are weak demonstrates how and artist painting a portrait through feeling is actually a portrait of themselves. This could also be a reflection of how Sargent felt from losing his father to a stroke, strong but weak at the same time.
There is a reason it is hard for a lot of viewers to connect to old portraits done of rulers, monarchs, and people in power. They all wanted to be represented as pristine and powerful. That is hard to relate to. While she was not a ruler, Gardner grew up being of high economic status and wanted to be presented as much. Sargent did the best he could with her demands and still painted her in his style. The allowing for an ocean of emotions to pour out of this piece compared to the first. I do not believe that Sargent would have been able to capture of strong sense of emotion and tranquility if he never had a long lasting and evolving relationship with Gardner. The two painting together can be considered an evolution of self, reflection, and friendship through the eyes of the artist.
In the beginning of their friendship, Gardner was under the impression her portrait would depict how she saw herself, not how Sargent saw her. While their friendship progressed, she was able to understand portraits with feeling are reflection of the artist, not the sitter. That allowed there to be an artistic of evolution of conveying such strong emotion in the second painting compared to the first. Portraits are more captivating and elude more emotion when the artist is able to paint with feeling, and feelings towards an individual only grow stronger when there is a relationship made. Due to the strong and everlasting between John Sargent and Isabella Gardner, his portrayal of her right before her death is soft, mysterious, and utterly captivating, compared to his first portrayal of her which has her come off as intimidating, commanding, and direct. The relationship between the artist and the sitter is crucial, and when there is one made, works like Mrs. Gardner are made.
Grant Stanfield
Robert Tracy
Art 474-1001
March 23, 2021
Opinion Paper
Throughout history, there have been many significant and iconic artists. Many of these artists’ quotes are being referenced and talked about to this day. I have decided to look at this quote, “In order for a portrait to be a work of art, it must not resemble the sitter.” (Umberto Boccioni, Technical Manifesto of Futurist Painting, 1910). I have also decided to look at the portrait, Madame X by John Singer Sargent. This piece really stood out to me, it looked different from the other portrait paintings I have seen. The white skin on the subjects really draws in the viewer’s eye because everything else in the painting are darker shades. I was surprised to see that this piece was met with such ridicule, I feel like when artists try to do something new or different it is always faced with some form of pushback or negative criticisms. I think this piece works well with the quote I chose because while it is a portrait of a lady, I can see the stylistic approach that the artist incorporated. Most people aren’t that pale, but the subject has a really good contrast against the dark background and her black dress. She is posed elegantly while the overall painting looks pretty mysterious.
While the work does resemble the sitter, many people won’t know who the subject is unless they do research. We find out that since the painting was faced with so much ridicule and negative reception, the subject was humiliated and the artist changed the painting’s name and moved away despite both of them thinking the piece was a masterpiece. When learning about what they faced, the quote becomes a little bit more clear and also a bit darker, if Sargent made the subject look a bit different from the model, he perhaps could have saved her from the scrutiny and embarrassment that she faced from the public. By having the subject look differently and keeping the ‘madame x’ name, the piece would have been more mysterious, but it still may have been criticized by the public. But those are all what-if scenarios and there is no real way to tell or see how things could have played out differently. It is hard to know exactly why the people at that time reacted so negatively towards this piece. If a piece like this was made in modern times featuring a well-known person as the model, I doubt that people would react the same way that they did. This is probably due to most people being more accepting of different forms of art, artistic expression, and how people present themselves. Overall, I really like this piece, It is sad to see how people at the time reacted to it and how it affected the model and artist’s lives. But, as the quote says, maybe the piece would have been more accepted if it did not look like the model- a model that people in their area knew.
Looking at Boccioni’s quote again, I am not sure I fully agree with it. Art is subjective, there is no ‘true’ work of after. I think Art is simply a medium that lets people express themselves however they see fit. Its quotes like these that turns art into some sort of an ‘exclusive club’, it hurts artists and viewers by making them think there is a certain way they have to create or think about art. With that said, I can also see why Boccioni made that comment. In Sargent’s case, making the subject look a bit different from the model could have at least saved the model from embarrassment, but I also think the experience they faced because of it also makes the piece more interesting. I think that is true for any painting with a wild story. But that makes me think if people should judge works of art for what they are or should they be judged for its story. I don’t have an answer to that question, I just think any works of art should be appreciated at the very least. It is sad to see how the public reacted to Sarget’s Madame X- especially since both he and the model really liked how it came out. It makes me think if artists should only focus on work that makes them happy instead of random viewers or should they only create works that are safe. I think that artists should focus on what makes them happy and if other people happen to like what they make then so be it. Art is subjective after all, anything can be considered works of art if that is the artists’ intention. Saying that works of art have to do or be something in order to be considered true works of art is pretty much the opposite of what art itself is, which is freedom of expression.
Samantha Mangino
Professor Robert Tracy
ART 474 Section 1001
25 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
Portraiture has been around for centuries and the main focus of a portrait is depicting the human subject. The purpose of a portrait is to capture the essence of the person and tell a story about who they are. A painting of someone is more than just a picture of them, as Lord Chesterfield said “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (English nobleman Lord Chesterfield, in a letter dated 1747). A successful portrait is one in that which every detail of the painting is carefully made by the artist to accurately portray their subject. The pose of the person, facial expression, and even the accessories in a painting, all tell you something about that person. One of the pieces of art in the lectures that embodies the quote above is Thomas Smith’s self-portrait.
The self-portrait of Thomas Smith is unique because it is the only New England portrait from the seventeenth-century by an identified artist. This painting is also the earliest extant American self-portrait. The painting was made around 1680 and the medium is oil on canvas. There aren’t very many facts recorded about Thomas Smith himself due to the fact there were several other men living in Boston in the late seventeenth-century with the same name. The only thing we know about him is that he was a painter who lived in Boston in the seventeenth century. However, art historians have made some educated guesses about his life. They believe that Smith was a Puritan and a mariner, perhaps even a naval officer. The only reason we even know these details about his life is thanks to the details he included in his self-portrait.
In Thomas Smith’s self-portrait, he is positioned in the middle of the canvas with half of his body in the frame, sitting in a red chair, facing three-quarters left with his gaze meeting the viewers. Thomas Smith took up painting late in life, so in his portrait, he is depicted as an older gentleman with shoulder-length gray hair parted down the middle with wrinkled pink skin. He is wearing a black coat with a fancy ruffled lace neckcloth with an intricate design. The pattern on the lace appears to be a mix of crossed lines as well as vines and stylized flowers. Another reason this portrait is significant is that it represents the stylistic shift in American art from the Elizabethan style to the baroque style. The modeling of his head, the wrinkles on his face, as well as the ruffles in the cloth are all examples of how this painting fits into the baroque style of painting. Smith used an abundance of intense light and shadows in his painting to make the figure appear three-dimensional in the space. Even though his self-portrait is a quite realistic representation of himself, it’s actually the details around Thomas Smith that is the most telling about his life.
The window behind him shows an event from his life which helps the viewers infer that he had a naval career. Through the window, it shows a naval battle scene and a fortress. There are three ships, one of them sinking in the water, and the other two with Dutch and British flags. His right hand rests on top of a skull that is missing its jaw. The dark gray skull contrasts greatly with his pink fleshy skin. The skull is a symbol of mortality and it’s related to vanitas. The image of skulls was also very common in gravestone carving during this time. The artist recognizes the certainty of death or his anticipation that he is going to die soon. The choice to exclude the skull’s jaw could reflect that decay is inevitable. This idea contrasts with the symbols of wealth in his portrait. One can conclude that Smith was a wealthy man due to his position of being a captain, the fancy clothes and setting, as well as the use of expensive material, ultramarine pigments, which he used for his eyes, and the flags in the distance. Underneath the skull lies a paper folding over the table with a poem written on it. Smith used the trompe l’oeil technique to try to make the paper appear three-dimensional. The intense light and shadows on the paper make it appear like it is actually bent over the table. The poem was signed with a monogram signature, T.S., which helped identify this painting as a self-portrait. The poem showed Smith’s Puritan beliefs about death and how it is a release from life’s tribulations. The skull symbolizes death and the window behind him shows the trials of life. The first half of the poem “Why why should I the World be minding/therein a World of Evils Finding. /Then Farwell World: Farwell thy Jarres/thy Joies thy Toies thy wiles thy Warrs” alludes to the naval battle scene and represents the political and religious rivals to the Protestant faith. While the second half of the poem “Truth Sounds Retreat; I am not Sorye. /The Eternall Drawes to him my heart/By Faith (which can thy Force Subvert)/To Crowne me (after Grace) with Glory.” represents Smith’s Puritans belief’s about not fearing death.
All the details included in Thomas Smith’s self-portrait help the viewer read into his life. This shows that this is more than just a painting or a picture of this man. It’s a story of his life and it shows “the inside of the heart and mind of the man”. This painting allows the viewer to see his mind because he included his Puritan beliefs about life and death, especially in the poem underneath the skull. The window scene also allows you to view a big part of his life as a naval officer. Overall, this self-portrait gives the viewer a good idea of who this man was and what his beliefs were. This is why portraits are important because they play a part in recording history as they serve as not only a visual representation of people but also a document of their personality and who they really were.
Kevin Kim
Professor Robert Tracy
ART 434 1002
ART 474 1001
“Stop inviting walls into wide open spaces!” (Buddy Wakefield)
Wakefield’s quote addresses a conundrum that everyone can relate to; the unnecessary need to add constraints or limitations to something. This resonates with me as I tend to either overcomplicate and limit myself greatly in whatever I do, especially in art, or blindly follow standards without ever thinking why I’m doing this or if it’s even necessary. Instead of thinking about what I can do, my mind immediately shifts towards what I think I can’t do. Not to say this is necessarily a bad thing as creative innovation can be achieved through limitations, but it can be problematic and stifle progress. An important part of the quote that jumped out to me is the word “inviting” because of its implication that people tend to openly bring about these limitations themselves. Even if there are already obstacles in the way of something, people tend to add more themselves either consciously or unconsciously. However, individuals are all different in the way we think, and once we begin to break down these self-made walls, we can truly see how creative freedom can lead to truly diverse and innovative art. Two artworks that break down the walls surrounding them I wanted to talk about are the Ca’n Terra by Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa, and The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset.
Ca’n Terra by Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa was one of the first works of art that came to mind after reading Wakefield’s quote. Ca’n Terra, meaning “House of the Earth”, is located in Menorca Island, Spain and is a old stone quarry that was renovated to be a home. Most people wouldn’t think of the potential of a stone quarry being a home at first glance and, even after renovation, it is definitely a place that most people wouldn’t really think of as a home. I’m sure if one were to ask people what a home is, their responses would be based on the general idea of a home, both in terms of physical and psychological aspects that have influenced through years of molding. However, if you were to ask what a home means to them, suddenly the meaning becomes more fluid. They might say somewhere where they feel safe, relaxed, and free to express themselves. Suddenly, Ca’n Terra doesn’t seem like such an outlandish idea to people anymore.
To understand how and why Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa came up with the Ca’n Terra for their home, we can take a look at their goals and work process. One of the manifestos by Ensamble Studios, the organization that Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa are a part of, that stood out to me was, “Our work has no pigeonholes, no barriers. We design the shadow to obtain spaces of light and we can build with heavy elements to obtain weightless and transparent spaces. We go from stressed structures to dense structures, from the small scale of the house to the bigger scale of the city, from reordered nature to prefabricated systems” (Manifesto). Ensamble Studios’ manifesto gives insight into how something like Ca’n Terra, with how it has been renovated into a home that fits with Anton and Debora’s vision of home, can be made. Thinking from a historical standpoint, the concept of home would’ve been considered a cave to our ancient ancestors, changing as humans developed over time, ultimately making the idea of an old stone quarry being one not too far fetched. Ca’n Terra invokes the meaning of Wakefield’s quote through its thinking outside the box, leading to an impressive architectural structure that holds all the weight of the term “home”. Anton and Debora’s architectural innovation breaks down the standard of a normal home while giving no reason to not consider Ca’n Terra one.
The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset, located at the Moynihan Train Hall, is another example of how people can go against inviting walls into wide open spaces. The vision of The Hive was of a global metropolis, with the purpose of attracting the attention of the busy commuters traveling across the Moynihan Train Hall. The result was an inverted, surreal metropolitan cityscape hanging from the ceiling of the Moynihan Train Hall. The buildings that make up The Hive are influenced from metropolitan buildings around the world such as New York, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, and London.
Taking a look at the finalized result of Elmgreen and Dragset’s The Hive, it begs the question of how and why the two came up with its innovative design and unique placement? Elmgreen and Dragset believe their works can influence change, not only in terms of art but also in terms of politics, society, and preconceived perceptions. In an ArtSpeak interview by Linda Yablonsky on June 29, 2020, Michael Elmgreen states that he believes, “research is a process of forgetting the conclusions you’ve come to and testing the theses behind them. It’s forever doubting and questioning, and never coming up with a final result” (Yablonsky). In another quote in the same interview regarding the duo’s working process, Elmgreen states, “scientists need to doubt their results all the time in order to get farther. We would still be working with stone axes if not for that curiosity” (Yablonsky). By taking a look into the thought process of Elmgreen and Dragset, we can begin to understand how the duo came up with a uniquely innovative design that breaks from usual artistic standards in favor of creative innovation. The Hive could’ve simply been an art piece that was placed in an art gallery or simply grounded into an area that is much easier to notice, but it wouldn’t carry the same impact to it compared to where it was designed to be. In regards to the notion of being placed in an art gallery, Elmgreen states, “It feels so unreal that we go through the same motion of installing a show over and over again without discussing why we do this and what has happened before. It’s like trying to make a ritual celebration out of something that’s very artificial” (Yablonsky). It is no question that every choice design and placement was deliberate. To finish off, a final quote from Yablonsky’s interview, Elmgreen states, “But through our experiments, and those of many different artists, you can keep alive possibility of change. It’s so important to show that you can break the rules, even on a small scale, especially in societies that have become more and more regulated. If you don’t keep the flame alight, what is there, in the end?” (Yablonsky). It is clear that the artistic duo would agree with Wakefield in the importance of breaking down walls in wide open spaces rather than inviting them with much to show for it.
Our greatest enemies in creativity and innovation often are ourselves. Keeping things in boundaries through limitations and constraints may appear to help us by narrowing our focus, but it can be a double edged sword. Like Anton and Debora’s Ca’n Terra and The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Dragset, it is important to always be pushing our imagination and reevaluating our pre-existing beliefs of what is seen as normal to us. If Anton and Debora had only thought about the concept of a home in the usual standard, a beautiful architectural piece such as Ca’n Terra that challenges a normalized and everyday concept would never have been made. The same goes for The Hive; if Elmgreen and Dragset didn’t look to make change and didn’t believe in a necessity to make change, to think outside the box, the unique inverted global metropolis would never have been made to attract the awe of the Moynihan Train Hall’s increasingly busy commuters everyday. Rather than inviting walls into our imagination, it is imperative that we should be working towards breaking down any existing walls in order to broaden our creative freedom.
Works Cited
“Manifesto.” Ensamble Studios. https://www.ensamble.info/about
Yoblansky, Linda, ArtSpace, June 29, 2020. https://www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/meet_the_artist/interview-elmgreen-dragset-what-we-need-to-do-as-cultural-workers-today-is-to-find-a-new-way-56596
Kevin Kim
Professor Robert Tracy
ART 434 1002
ART 474 1001
“Stop inviting walls into wide open spaces!” (Buddy Wakefield)
Wakefield’s quote addresses a conundrum that everyone can relate to; the unnecessary need to add constraints or limitations to something. This resonates with me as I tend to either overcomplicate and limit myself greatly in whatever I do, especially in art, or blindly follow standards without ever thinking why I’m doing this or if it’s even necessary. Instead of thinking about what I can do, my mind immediately shifts towards what I think I can’t do. Not to say this is necessarily a bad thing as creative innovation can be achieved through limitations, but it can be problematic and stifle progress. An important part of the quote that jumped out to me is the word “inviting” because of its implication that people tend to openly bring about these limitations themselves. Even if there are already obstacles in the way of something, people tend to add more themselves either consciously or unconsciously. However, individuals are all different in the way we think, and once we begin to break down these self-made walls, we can truly see how creative freedom can lead to truly diverse and innovative art. Two artworks that break down the walls surrounding them I wanted to talk about are the Ca’n Terra by Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa, and The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset.
Ca’n Terra by Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa was one of the first works of art that came to mind after reading Wakefield’s quote. Ca’n Terra, meaning “House of the Earth”, is located in Menorca Island, Spain and is a old stone quarry that was renovated to be a home. Most people wouldn’t think of the potential of a stone quarry being a home at first glance and, even after renovation, it is definitely a place that most people wouldn’t really think of as a home. I’m sure if one were to ask people what a home is, their responses would be based on the general idea of a home, both in terms of physical and psychological aspects that have influenced through years of molding. However, if you were to ask what a home means to them, suddenly the meaning becomes more fluid. They might say somewhere where they feel safe, relaxed, and free to express themselves. Suddenly, Ca’n Terra doesn’t seem like such an outlandish idea to people anymore.
To understand how and why Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa came up with the Ca’n Terra for their home, we can take a look at their goals and work process. One of the manifestos by Ensamble Studios, the organization that Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa are a part of, that stood out to me was, “Our work has no pigeonholes, no barriers. We design the shadow to obtain spaces of light and we can build with heavy elements to obtain weightless and transparent spaces. We go from stressed structures to dense structures, from the small scale of the house to the bigger scale of the city, from reordered nature to prefabricated systems” (Manifesto). Ensamble Studios’ manifesto gives insight into how something like Ca’n Terra, with how it has been renovated into a home that fits with Anton and Debora’s vision of home, can be made. Thinking from a historical standpoint, the concept of home would’ve been considered a cave to our ancient ancestors, changing as humans developed over time, ultimately making the idea of an old stone quarry being one not too far fetched. Ca’n Terra invokes the meaning of Wakefield’s quote through its thinking outside the box, leading to an impressive architectural structure that holds all the weight of the term “home”. Anton and Debora’s architectural innovation breaks down the standard of a normal home while giving no reason to not consider Ca’n Terra one.
The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset, located at the Moynihan Train Hall, is another example of how people can go against inviting walls into wide open spaces. The vision of The Hive was of a global metropolis, with the purpose of attracting the attention of the busy commuters traveling across the Moynihan Train Hall. The result was an inverted, surreal metropolitan cityscape hanging from the ceiling of the Moynihan Train Hall. The buildings that make up The Hive are influenced from metropolitan buildings around the world such as New York, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, and London.
Taking a look at the finalized result of Elmgreen and Dragset’s The Hive, it begs the question of how and why the two came up with its innovative design and unique placement? Elmgreen and Dragset believe their works can influence change, not only in terms of art but also in terms of politics, society, and preconceived perceptions. In an ArtSpeak interview by Linda Yablonsky on June 29, 2020, Michael Elmgreen states that he believes, “research is a process of forgetting the conclusions you’ve come to and testing the theses behind them. It’s forever doubting and questioning, and never coming up with a final result” (Yablonsky). In another quote in the same interview regarding the duo’s working process, Elmgreen states, “scientists need to doubt their results all the time in order to get farther. We would still be working with stone axes if not for that curiosity” (Yablonsky). By taking a look into the thought process of Elmgreen and Dragset, we can begin to understand how the duo came up with a uniquely innovative design that breaks from usual artistic standards in favor of creative innovation. The Hive could’ve simply been an art piece that was placed in an art gallery or simply grounded into an area that is much easier to notice, but it wouldn’t carry the same impact to it compared to where it was designed to be. In regards to the notion of being placed in an art gallery, Elmgreen states, “It feels so unreal that we go through the same motion of installing a show over and over again without discussing why we do this and what has happened before. It’s like trying to make a ritual celebration out of something that’s very artificial” (Yablonsky). It is no question that every choice design and placement was deliberate. To finish off, a final quote from Yablonsky’s interview, Elmgreen states, “But through our experiments, and those of many different artists, you can keep alive possibility of change. It’s so important to show that you can break the rules, even on a small scale, especially in societies that have become more and more regulated. If you don’t keep the flame alight, what is there, in the end?” (Yablonsky). It is clear that the artistic duo would agree with Wakefield in the importance of breaking down walls in wide open spaces rather than inviting them with much to show for it.
Our greatest enemies in creativity and innovation often are ourselves. Keeping things in boundaries through limitations and constraints may appear to help us by narrowing our focus, but it can be a double edged sword. Like Anton and Debora’s Ca’n Terra and The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Dragset, it is important to always be pushing our imagination and reevaluating our pre-existing beliefs of what is seen as normal to us. If Anton and Debora had only thought about the concept of a home in the usual standard, a beautiful architectural piece such as Ca’n Terra that challenges a normalized and everyday concept would never have been made. The same goes for The Hive; if Elmgreen and Dragset didn’t look to make change and didn’t believe in a necessity to make change, to think outside the box, the unique inverted global metropolis would never have been made to attract the awe of the Moynihan Train Hall’s increasingly busy commuters everyday. Rather than inviting walls into our imagination, it is imperative that we should be working towards breaking down any existing walls in order to broaden our creative freedom.
Works Cited
“Manifesto.” Ensamble Studios. https://www.ensamble.info/about
Yoblansky, Linda, ArtSpace, June 29, 2020. https://www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/meet_the_artist/interview-elmgreen-dragset-what-we-need-to-do-as-cultural-workers-today-is-to-find-a-new-way-56596
Ilyana Raymond
Robert Tracy
Art 474.1001
24 March 2021
The Portrayal of Mary Cassatt
“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.”
–Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
In both Degas’s and Cassatt’s portraits, there is a similar technical usage of paint. The strokes are somewhat loose and unrefined, save the areas where one pays most attention: the face. Both artists render a strong gaze, pink lips, and a few hairs emerging from Cassatt’s bonnet. However, this quote from Wilde can be well applied to these paintings. While these paintings may be technically similar, the sense of who Cassatt is as a person is very different in these paintings’ conveyances.
In Degas’s portrait of Mary Cassatt, Cassatt sits in a plain wooden chair in a beige, undefined space. The space behind Cassatt’s head is painted flatly with a lighter shade of brown than the rest of the work, so as to differentiate her head from the brown background. She wears a black dress with white collared wrists, as well as a light brown hat with a dull red bow on top. Similarly, she has a large dull red bow tied around her neck, which hangs down onto her chest. Her body is equally undefined, only the silhouette of her body and the whites of her wrist collars informing the viewer of her position: hunched over herself, resting her elbows upon her knees. In her hands she holds three small cards; they may be photographs. Her hands are of a browner hue than her face, which is pinker and more fully realized in detail.
She looks directly at the viewer, her face seemingly directed upwards from where she had just been looking down at the photographs. Her blue eyes are focused, almost piercing. Her eyebrows are raised sociably, and she has a small smile forming. In this piece by Degas, should the viewer know nothing else about Cassatt, they may get a sense that she is an open person, looking to reminisce or chit chat. This may have been how Degas viewed Cassatt. As such, this portrait is not necessarily one in which Degas is creating a “portrait of the artist,” but is certainly one in which he is inserting his own interpretation of who Cassatt is as a person. In this way, the piece is not a “portrait of the sitter,” but a portrait of the person Degas believes to be Cassatt.
In the following portrait, Cassatt’s self portrait, the mood of the painting could not be more different. In this piece, Cassat sits on a small sofa or loveseat of green and red stripes, in an undefined space, perhaps with a simple blank tan wall behind her. She is in a semi-reclined position, as she leans one arm onto the sofa, and her hands are resting loosely together in her lap. She wears an all white dress, quite the contrast to Degas’ piece, as well as white gloves and a red bonnet. Atop the bonnet are red and green brush strokes, likely indicating flowers. The bonnet’s ribbons come down under Cassatt’s chin and are tied into a striking red bow, flowing over her white dress.
In Cassatt’s self portrait, however, she does not meet the gaze of the viewer. In this work, Cassatt turns her face moodily to the right, either looking at something out of frame, unknown to the viewer, or simply averting her gaze entirely. Her mouth does not form a smile; it rests in a neutral frowning position. Her eyebrows rest equally neutrally. This piece seems to be one which takes on a more introspective quality, as compared to Degas’ work, wherein Cassatt seems quite inviting. In her self portrait, Cassatt presents herself in a light which peers of hers may not usually have seen: thoughtful, quiet, introspective. As she holds her hands together and stares out into middle distance, she assumes the familiar disposition of someone deep in contemplation.
Adding to this contemplative atmosphere, despite the white dress and beige background, is the usage of lighting within the work. In Degas’s work, the lighting is little to none; the work consists of the colors to indicate the shapes of Cassatt’s form, with minimal shading in her face to vaguely suggest a light source to the left. Comparatively, Cassatt’s self portrait has a stronger lighting: the underside of her bonnet is darker than the top, and the left side of her face is considerably lighter than the right, unlike in Degas’s work.
The culmination of Cassatt’s self portrait imparts onto the viewer a greatly different sense of who she is as compared to Degas’s interpretation. In this work, she is both the sitter and the artist, and yet one cannot help but feel that she captures the essence of Wilde’s statement of this being a “portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” In her self portrait, Cassatt conveys her own sense of self, rather than how she perceives another person. And yet, she also manages to capture multiple facets of her own self: not just the moodiness of her disposition, but the refinement of her white clothes as well to show that she is a respectable woman, even if she is not always available to offer up a smile to whoever comes looking for one from her.
From my own point of view, I prefer Cassatt’s painting to Degas’s, especially knowing that it is her self portrait. While I state that Degas’s portrait of Cassatt is one which displays his interpretation of who she is, this is not to say he was necessarily wrong. However, being able to share one’s less positive feelings is something of value which I believe should not be overlooked. As covered in the lessons on Cassatt, she was fairly limited in the range of what was considered ‘acceptable’ for her work. Given this, it makes me happy to see that she was able to express some of the less wholesome or pleasant sides of herself within her work, even if only in something as simple as her self portrait.
Kevin Kim
Professor Robert Tracy
ART 434 1002
ART 474 1001
“Stop inviting walls into wide open spaces!” (Buddy Wakefield)
Wakefield’s quote addresses a conundrum that everyone can relate to; the unnecessary need to add constraints or limitations to something. This resonates with me as I tend to either overcomplicate and limit myself greatly in whatever I do, especially in art, or blindly follow standards without ever thinking why I’m doing this or if it’s even necessary. Instead of thinking about what I can do, my mind immediately shifts towards what I think I can’t do. Not to say this is necessarily a bad thing as creative innovation can be achieved through limitations, but it can be problematic and stifle progress. An important part of the quote that jumped out to me is the word “inviting” because of its implication that people tend to openly bring about these limitations themselves. Even if there are already obstacles in the way of something, people tend to add more themselves either consciously or unconsciously. However, individuals are all different in the way we think, and once we begin to break down these self-made walls, we can truly see how creative freedom can lead to truly diverse and innovative art. Two artworks that break down the walls surrounding them I wanted to talk about are the Ca’n Terra by Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa, and The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset.
Ca’n Terra by Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa was one of the first works of art that came to mind after reading Wakefield’s quote. Ca’n Terra, meaning “House of the Earth”, is located in Menorca Island, Spain and is a old stone quarry that was renovated to be a home. Most people wouldn’t think of the potential of a stone quarry being a home at first glance and, even after renovation, it is definitely a place that most people wouldn’t really think of as a home. I’m sure if one were to ask people what a home is, their responses would be based on the general idea of a home, both in terms of physical and psychological aspects that have influenced through years of molding. However, if you were to ask what a home means to them, suddenly the meaning becomes more fluid. They might say somewhere where they feel safe, relaxed, and free to express themselves. Suddenly, Ca’n Terra doesn’t seem like such an outlandish idea to people anymore.
To understand how and why Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa came up with the Ca’n Terra for their home, we can take a look at their goals and work process. One of the manifestos by Ensamble Studios, the organization that Anton Garcia-April and Debora Mesa are a part of, that stood out to me was, “Our work has no pigeonholes, no barriers. We design the shadow to obtain spaces of light and we can build with heavy elements to obtain weightless and transparent spaces. We go from stressed structures to dense structures, from the small scale of the house to the bigger scale of the city, from reordered nature to prefabricated systems” (Manifesto). Ensamble Studios’ manifesto gives insight into how something like Ca’n Terra, with how it has been renovated into a home that fits with Anton and Debora’s vision of home, can be made. Thinking from a historical standpoint, the concept of home would’ve been considered a cave to our ancient ancestors, changing as humans developed over time, ultimately making the idea of an old stone quarry being one not too far fetched. Ca’n Terra invokes the meaning of Wakefield’s quote through its thinking outside the box, leading to an impressive architectural structure that holds all the weight of the term “home”. Anton and Debora’s architectural innovation breaks down the standard of a normal home while giving no reason to not consider Ca’n Terra one.
The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset, located at the Moynihan Train Hall, is another example of how people can go against inviting walls into wide open spaces. The vision of The Hive was of a global metropolis, with the purpose of attracting the attention of the busy commuters traveling across the Moynihan Train Hall. The result was an inverted, surreal metropolitan cityscape hanging from the ceiling of the Moynihan Train Hall. The buildings that make up The Hive are influenced from metropolitan buildings around the world such as New York, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, and London.
Taking a look at the finalized result of Elmgreen and Dragset’s The Hive, it begs the question of how and why the two came up with its innovative design and unique placement? Elmgreen and Dragset believe their works can influence change, not only in terms of art but also in terms of politics, society, and preconceived perceptions. In an ArtSpeak interview by Linda Yablonsky on June 29, 2020, Michael Elmgreen states that he believes, “research is a process of forgetting the conclusions you’ve come to and testing the theses behind them. It’s forever doubting and questioning, and never coming up with a final result” (Yablonsky). In another quote in the same interview regarding the duo’s working process, Elmgreen states, “scientists need to doubt their results all the time in order to get farther. We would still be working with stone axes if not for that curiosity” (Yablonsky). By taking a look into the thought process of Elmgreen and Dragset, we can begin to understand how the duo came up with a uniquely innovative design that breaks from usual artistic standards in favor of creative innovation. The Hive could’ve simply been an art piece that was placed in an art gallery or simply grounded into an area that is much easier to notice, but it wouldn’t carry the same impact to it compared to where it was designed to be. In regards to the notion of being placed in an art gallery, Elmgreen states, “It feels so unreal that we go through the same motion of installing a show over and over again without discussing why we do this and what has happened before. It’s like trying to make a ritual celebration out of something that’s very artificial” (Yablonsky). It is no question that every choice design and placement was deliberate. To finish off, a final quote from Yablonsky’s interview, Elmgreen states, “But through our experiments, and those of many different artists, you can keep alive possibility of change. It’s so important to show that you can break the rules, even on a small scale, especially in societies that have become more and more regulated. If you don’t keep the flame alight, what is there, in the end?” (Yablonsky). It is clear that the artistic duo would agree with Wakefield in the importance of breaking down walls in wide open spaces rather than inviting them with much to show for it.
Our greatest enemies in creativity and innovation often are ourselves. Keeping things in boundaries through limitations and constraints may appear to help us by narrowing our focus, but it can be a double edged sword. Like Anton and Debora’s Ca’n Terra and The Hive by Michael Elmgreen and Dragset, it is important to always be pushing our imagination and reevaluating our pre-existing beliefs of what is seen as normal to us. If Anton and Debora had only thought about the concept of a home in the usual standard, a beautiful architectural piece such as Ca’n Terra that challenges a normalized and everyday concept would never have been made. The same goes for The Hive; if Elmgreen and Dragset didn’t look to make change and didn’t believe in a necessity to make change, to think outside the box, the unique inverted global metropolis would never have been made to attract the awe of the Moynihan Train Hall’s increasingly busy commuters everyday. Rather than inviting walls into our imagination, it is imperative that we should be working towards breaking down any existing walls in order to broaden our creative freedom.
Works Cited
“Manifesto.” Ensamble Studios. https://www.ensamble.info/about
Yoblansky, Linda, ArtSpace, June 29, 2020. https://www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/meet_the_artist/interview-elmgreen-dragset-what-we-need-to-do-as-cultural-workers-today-is-to-find-a-new-way-56596
Alexis Guerra | Professor Tracy | Art 474/674 | 23 March 2021
Nature and Humanity
In Thomas Cole’s Landscape paintings I decided to specifically look at “Course of an Empire: Savage State,” 1836 and “The Voyage of Life: Infancy” 1842. Both paintings are the beginning of each series and found to greater in the landscape along with meaning. I chose not to the series as a whole as it’s important to see the beginning of each painting how much Cole’s ideas are seen through the beginning that gives us already an idea of what’s to be presented. The start of life is shown but leads a path to the next painting in the series. The “Savage State” is the beginning of nature but also seen as “life too wild and chaotic” while Infancy the wildlife is untouched but man is gliding through to see its wonders. Living hand in hand at the moment. Both paintings so to speak both give the same feelings that Thomas Cole portrays to the viewer with a state of nature that can not be contained along with a state that shouldn’t be touched or disrupted.
Oscar Wilde put this into words, “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter” (The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). No matter if it’s a portrait or painting of landscape there is an aspect within the pieces that are coming entirely from the artist. Whether it is being the lighting or an emphasis on a certain part of the subject. Thomas Cole in both pieces as mention being “Course of an Empire: Savage State,” 1836 and “The Voyage of Life: Infancy” 1842 really are the start of series that show that of his beliefs. Cole brings to light a metaphor and moral into the painting with every look you give the paintings. If both painting the Savage State and Infancy does not show the progression of life but it starts without too much disruption by man. It starts as a youthful and living without disruption but as time goes on till there are so many changes in life that it masks true nature. Cole brings what he feels within what he sees and brings it into the painting.
In more depth let’s first look at “Savage State” it’s dawn and the land is lush with life. The native is living without destroying the land. “Overall, rocks, wood, and water brooded the spirit of repose, and the silent energy of nature stirred the soul to its innermost depths.” (Thomas Cole). There is no empire built on top of anything yet and it’s the landing breathing, living without anything to mask its true appearance. On the left side of the painting the Native American setup tipis around a fire in a clearing it is integrated with nature and does no harm around. There is no stump that is broken but instead in a clearing that isn’t surrounded by a lot of nature. Predominantly nature isn’t disrupted or anything to mask what was once there inland. There is seen in the foreground of the “Savage State” two hunters hunting a deer. It has also seen a path following this deer set up by the land. It’s abundant in life still and shows how natural life uninterrupted by empires and humans masks its beauty. This is ideally what the land should be and look like. Thomas Cole believes this is what the painting itself is and that of his beliefs. Nothing to fully disrupt the life that is seen instead it’s integrated as one. Truly this what Thomas Cole knows the landscape should be without any disruptions to mask the land and its beautiful creation. It’s more evident more so than “Course of Empire: Savage State” where we don’t see youth but Native Americans in a clearing.
“The Voyage of Life: Infancy” the painting once again is of life as the baby is guided in the boat by the angel showing an untouched world that is lush with nature all around. Youth to show the land is more abundant with that life. Therefrom the cave outward is a baby abundant in life but also the land with plant life, a sunrise lighting early yellow on all life. This creates a more lively glow on the piece and emphasizes both the baby, angel, boat helm along with plant life. It’s the same premise to show a more predominant land filled with nature than one with landscapes and without human disruption. That the beginning of any stage is more lively and unmasked but soon is taken abruptly throughout the series. While Infancy Cole shows how life begins the first stage in a different reiteration from Savage’s state. It shows the beginning of nature of that of the baby is that more lively and untouched. An angel present as though this is God’s land showing that of more religious belief from Cole unknowingly to the viewer at a glance until we see the angel which is significant to piece entirety. The angel gives off the impression to not disrupt God’s land or harm it in a way of destroying what is around. The boat itself and the only human baby in it are only on water and to show the distance at hand. These two details do not touch the rocks of life on land but completely stay in the water that is moving. It also shows a hand untouched by humanity and shows how much Thomas Cole’s morals are that of nature to be unmasked or untouched by humanity.
The landscape isn’t showing only nature but that of Thomas Cole’s own morals and beliefs. It’s much more than the land and at a glance from only the beginning of each series, there is so much that is uncontrolled. Nothing to mask what is there or anything disrupts life entirely. It gives a feeling that the landscape is full of life. It is seen to the great details made into the landscape plant life which are more than that of the humans living on paintings. It is more of a distance we see humanity lived with nature but also at a distance.
Jules Ditzler
Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001
03/24/2021
First Opinion Paper
Of course money is a necessity, however money is not the only source of wealth that comes from painting. Some paint because they have a desire to express an emotion and this desire is as strong for some as the desire to take long walks along the beach as the sun sprinkles pink and purple hues across the sand.
The quote, “No man ever painted history as if he could obtain employment in portraits,” (Gilbert Stuart, quoted in Richardson, Gilbert Stuart) relates to
York Harbor, Coast of Maine by Martin Johnson Heade because Heade is one of those people who paints for more than just money. Martin Johnson Heade found that his desire to paint began to be inspired by the world around him as industrialization started taking hold of America one state at a time. He did not see what needed to be changed about the beautiful world that was already around him so he began to focus his art more so on showing how nature can provide a source of tranquility to his viewers and not just a potential source of income. The tranquility that Heade is so easily able to convey is due to his use of luminosity, which is the use of bright lights and colors to show defined landscapes.
The painting is 15 1/4 × 30 1/4 inches and has been signed in the lower left corner. There are both bright textures and depths since Heade used oil on a canvas and his choice to use oil probably stemmed from the paint’s wide availability back in 1877. The viewer’s focus starts from the luminous spots in the clouds in the top right corner and leads to the shadow it is creating directly under it. From there the shoreline of the harbor guides attention to the left side of the composition where the sun reflects on the water as if there was a sliver of water made out of diamonds. Then the land becomes elevated to the same height as the gorgeously shaded sun behind an ominous layer of clouds.
The painting has a beautiful use of light and reflection upon the water as the sun is either rising or falling. So much technique is needed to make the light be so realistic but Heade makes it look so simple with how easily they achieve this. There are three boats floating in the water that bring a sense of motion yet encapsulate stillness in the same frame. One is larger and to the right of the composition as the other two are slightly smaller and towards the center of the harbor.
The boats cast a shadow and one shows a person in order to convey the size of the landscape they are immersed in. The shoreline becomes thicker towards the land to the left of the composition and the front leaving a clear indication of shape of the harbor. The foliage in the foreground is minimal with only a few slivers of grass protruding from a bush of sorts that seems to be in front of a large rock or boulder that is covered up half way from the bottom with moss. These rocks match the half covered in moss rocks that are slightly larger but more towards the right of the composition.
The foliage in the background seems to be very similar with taller bushes that continue to lead into even taller trees as the focus draws farther back in the composition. The rule of thirds can be seen by the bright spots breaching the clouds only in two locations. One location is over the boats floating on the harbor to the right and the other is more to the left and lower but is creating the largest reflection of the two. The feeling that becomes present while looking at this scene is stillness because I can almost feel the moisture in the air from the density of the clouds that allows them to diffuse the sunlight in such an aesthetic tone that time almost seems to fade away. Both the water and the sails of the boats are resting which adds even more stillness to the composition.
Another emotion that this composition evokes is reflection, not only because of how the luminous spots in the sky reflect off of the water in the harbor, but also because of how this landscape makes me think about my own relationship with nature. I have been steadily gaining speed on the road to sustainable living in my own life because I too see how the world could prosper from consuming less. Technology has its uses but when it is combined with humanities desire to help one another, then I believe that we can truly restore the earth as closely as possible to the healthy state it was in before its resources began to be overconsumed.
Today’s world still has a large following of people who would prefer to live in harmony with the environment rather than growing out of alignment with it. One of the most simple ways to live in harmony with nature would be to respect that the resources must be spread out in order to do any real good. Some people have started living as close to off grid as possible in order to reduce the amount of resources that they take from the earth, while others have been able to do smaller, but not any less important things, such as just choosing a paper bag over a plastic bag at the grocery store.
Klaire Viduya
Robert Tracy
ART 674-1001
25 March 2021
Essence more than a specific detail is what truly captures a subject. Often, in any process of the creation of art, once a pen is put into paper, one of the first few things to do is to draw what is perceived- what the heart of the subject might be. This technique is seen in architecture time and time again; sometimes you only have a few minutes with the things you can sketch and create unfinished work. Despite the messier and rougher results, the point of the art created still comes across with just few simple sketches.
Capturing an essence rather than just the details has been something that is prevalent in a lot of painted artworks be it portraits or landscapes. Interpretation of the subject can definitely change how they can be portrayed as well as how an artist wants to show them off as a whole.
“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). An artist interprets how these works are presented to them and how they perceived their subjects by the end of the day. It could be how they know their sitters or it could also be how they consumed what was presented to them at the moment. Either way, an artwork is not just capturing someone’s physical likeness but their entire being, not just a historically accurate moment but the feeling as it is experienced, and sometimes not something that’s practically there but an atmosphere.
In John Singer Sargent’s El Jaleo (1882), the painting can be seen as the final result of Sargent’s travel throughout Spain and North Africa, the fascination he has developed for watching dance, and just the art that surrounds it like the light and the music. The full essence of the subject matter comes through the painting even with the more nondescript things in the background, the faces aren’t too detailed and looked clear, there is no big indication on where the place is, where the dance is happening, the viewers aren’t sure who these people are. But the heart of the moment, what made Sargent interested in drawing the sketches for this painting in the first place is what can attract the viewer to whatever is happening inside the painting. This essence is portrayed in the rhythm, the dramatics, and just the general movement of the piece. In a way, this piece could be seen as an artwork that’s purely made from the feeling of a memory.
Going on a more closed up scale in works, the same principle can be said for the works of Thomas Eakins. He has painted portraits that captures more of what the person is like rather than just the surface level of what’s there. This is very evident on the portraits he made of Mary Adeline Williams (1899) and the one of Walt Whitman (1887-88). In the Portrait of Mary Adeline Williams, Eakins focused more on the character of his subject rather than just the beauty. In this work, Eakins portrays the feeling of encouragement and directness that can be inferred as what he felt with this particular subject. Making the personality of Williams reflect more through his artwork.
The notion that the painter’s feelings are projected more into the subjects than the other way around in this instance would be more convincing when looking at the painting Eakins has done of Walt Whitman. It can be inferred that Whitman and Eakins both know each other and have at least some sort of connection judging by the fact that Eakins has some photographs of Whitman on top of his works depicting the writer. Whitman’s portrait exudes his personality and character over his beauty just like how it went for Mary Adeline Williams but when it’s looked at more, it reveals a psychological insight of Whitman’s character to the viewer. It shows the effects of the isolation and social uselessness to Whitman who was staying at his brother’s home in New Jersey after suffering from a stroke. It was noted that Whitman was bedridden during his entire stay at his brother’s house. As Eakins was taken in the residence, he must have witnessed the frustrations as well as empathized with Whitman’s situation and that showed through the portrait that Eakins made of him.
The feeling of the artist is heavily intertwined with what the end result of his works might be. It could be an accumulation of experiences from them that have created the artwork, a collage of memories and emotions experienced boiled into a canvas. It could be a feeling, a knowledge of someone familiar to the artist and how they are portrayed reflects on the feelings of the artist towards them and during. The artist can be seen as a viewing lens when looking at their works. It’s not going to be a fully accurate depiction of the subject but rather an interpretation. Perceiving and projecting in art are both highly affective of where the work ends up taking the artist and how the viewers take and see this once it is done.
Tyler Lambert
Dr. Robert Tracy
Art 474 1001
21, March 2021
Opinion/Position Paper
Artists have been painting different types of portraits inspired by the figure. However, artists design their figure’s portraits with their own creativity, perspective, and emotions. In 1891, Oscar Wilde stated: “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). Wilde’s perspective on portraits is reflected in both John Trumbull’s George Washington at Verplank and William Sidney Mount’s The Bone Player. Both Trumbull and Pelham portray their figure’s portraits in their own setting, emotion, and perspective. They interpret their figure’s portraits in their own creativity and personal expression.
John Turnbull is a painter who served the military as a Colonel until he studied art from 1780 to 1789 in both London and America. His artworks focus on both history paintings and patriotic temperament. In 1790, Turnbull painted a portrait of: George Washington at Verplanck. Turnbull created his portrait using oil paint on a 108 x 72 inch canvas. Turnbull’s portrait captures George Washington, in his military attire, standing next to his white horse outside in Verplanck. In his artwork, Turnbull incorporates his own interpretation of both George Washington and his army’s position during the American Revolutionary War. In his artwork, Washington is looking towards the horizon. Also, the background features a desulated battlefield in a bright blue sky. It creates the idea of both of Washington’s victory and confidence after a battle. Turnbull captures George Washington in a positive environment to emphasize his belief in America’s strength and advantage during the American Revolutionary War. Also, Turnbull illustrates America’s history with war in his portrait.
Turnbull recreates American history with the American Revolutionary War in George Washington’s portrait. In his artwork, he captures Verplanck as a desolate war environment with both a black and brown color scheme. Also, he includes a small ravine with two army soldiers preparing for battle in his background. In addition, Turnbull included black smoke on the right side of the background. Finally, he captures George Washington in his military uniform with a sword, horse, and protection helmet. Turnbull portrayed Verplanck to represent the American Revolutionary War in George Washington’s portrait. Turnbull captured George Washington in both a confident position and positive environment to reflect America’s strength and advantage during a battle. Also, Turnbull portrayed both George Washington and Verplanck in a battleground to reflect American Revolutionary War. Turnbull painted George Washington at Verplanck to reflect America’s history of the American Revolutionary War.
William Sidney Mount is a genre painter who focuses on uncompromising straight forward realism. His realism art style incorporates both lively movement and anecdotal references. In 1856, Mount painted a portrait of: The Bone Player. Mount created his portrait by using oil paint on a 36 1/8 x 29 1/8 inch canvas. Mount’s portrait consists of an African-American gentleman holding two pairs of rib bones in both hands. In his artwork, Mount portrayed his interpretation of the Bone Player through both his art style and his figure’s movements. The Bone Player is lifting both his hands up in the air to present his bones in the portrait. Also, he is gesturing his head towards an audience with a smile. Both emotions and gestures create the idea that the Bone Player is actively playing music with his bones. Also, both the Bone Player’s movement and emotions create the idea that his portrait is captured in a positive environment. Mount portrayed the Bone Player as a lively musician performing a show in a positive environment. Mount captures both his own interpretation and belief of how the Bone Player should be presented in his portrait. Also, he designed his portrait based on his own interpretation of realism.
William Mount displays a straightforward sense of realism in his portrayal of The Bone Player. In his artwork, Mount portrayed the Bone Player in a realistic scenario based on both his figure and environment designs. The Bone Player is depicted as a realistic male figure based on his physical structure and proportions, skin and clothing textures, facial features, proper shading techniques, and precise color schemes. Also, Mount depicted the Bone Player as both a gentleman and musician based on his outfit design. Both of the Bone Player’s dress jacket and pants create the idea that he is a refined gentleman. Also, the Bone Player’s hat, bowtie, and vest create the idea that he is a 1800s professional musician. In addition, Mount captures the Bone Player sitting in a dimly-lit room with a brown background, a table with both a vase and glass cup, and a toolbox. This scenario creates the idea that the Bone Player is gesturing in front of people at either a club or restaurant. Mount depicted both the Bone Player and his environment, so they would cooperate properly in a realistic environment. Mount painted The Bone Player as a lively man in a realistic environment to represent his art style.
Artists have designed their figure’s portraits with their own creativity, perspective, and emotions. In 1891, Oscar Wilde stated: “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). Both Trumbull and Pelham portray their figure’s portraits in their own setting, emotion, and perspective. They interpret their figure’s portraits in their own creativity and personal expression.
Sophia Brattoli
ART 474-472
First Opinion Paper
March 23, 2021
Umberto Boccioni once said, “In order for a portrait to be a work of art, it must not resemble the sitter”. In this quote I can clearly picture the works of Rosa Bonheur. She was born into a family of artists in a time when being a female artist was unheard of, and certainly was not a respected title. The academy in Paris did not accept any female students, so Bonheur would copy paintings at the Louvre. Her drawings “did not resemble the sitter” because she didn’t have the opportunity to have anyone sit for her. Instead she had to make her way in an unprecedented manner, setting the stage for other female artists to come all the way down to myself.
Bonheur began attending dissections and anatomy lessons at the National Veterinary Institute and made many sketches to use as reference for her drawings. Throughout time art students use the actual anatomy of things to create illustrations and paintings. For example, the kneecaps and elbows are circular shapes where the ribcage and pelvis make more box shapes. This in-depth examination that Bonheur is exhibiting truly shows her dedication to the skill of drawing, because with this deep foundation and understanding of anatomy an artist can manipulate their subject in any way they want. This is what Da Vinci did with the Vitruvian man and Michelangelo did with his sculptures. These men set a precedent that would be followed hundreds of years later.
Bonheur began following the traditional art schooling system from her home since she belonged to a family of established painters, which began with copying masters, and eventually moving on to sketching live animals that were outside the family home. She started becoming very famous for her expert drawings of animals. When she sketched or painted outside of the home, Bonheur adopted an affinity for wearing men’s clothes so that eyes would not be drawn to her as the odd female artist. She began travelling through England and Scotland and was praised for her skills by Queen Victoria. This interaction shot Bonheur to fame, and in 1894 she was commissioned by her home country of France for a painting. This painting was “Ploughing in the Nivernais” and would become one of her most famous works. This painting is currently displayed in the famous Musée d’ Orsay in Paris, and they detail that the piece depicts a team of oxen ploughing the soil before the winter began. It seems that Bonheur’s strength was capturing these small almost immaterial acts to us today, but for citizens of the French countryside this shows a recognizable act. We get a sense of memory from this piece, the feeling that someone could see this displayed and be instantly drawn back to a certain place and time. The light coats of the oxen in the foreground draw them into view first, placing them against the tonal sky. The rolling hills in the background give a sense of anticipation, since we as the viewer are informed that this is an act that happens right before the trees turn colors in Autumn. We are then directed to view the active moving people, which again give a sense of tribute to the people of that place in that time. They are tending to their ground so that they may use it again in the coming spring. Such a touching tribute to the people that was commissioned by the state is the reason that this piece has such an undying and timeless presence, and deservingly gave Bonheur acclaim.
Another one of Bonheur’s most famous pieces is “The Horse Fair” created in 1852. This piece is absolutely massive, standing eight feet tall and sixteen-feet wide. It is currently displayed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, and the museum details that Bonheur tediously created this piece by standing in the horse market square in Paris twice a week for over a year and half. This piece depicts and expert understanding of contrast, again displaying the lighter colored focal point horses against a very muted background. Again, to me this seems to be a tribute to the people of the town, depicting what seems to be an everyday, if not weekly act of parading horses for sale. It gives us a feeling of belonging, and the scale of the piece attributes to that, drawing the viewer in as if they are in the place that Bonheur is standing. Diagonal lines are created with the horse’s legs throughout the piece, not only giving it a ton of action and movement, but also drawing the viewer’s eye from left to right and back around again. A closer look at the piece shows a wide range of expression from every living thing in the scene. The men show strain from holding back a multitude of clearly bewildered animals, some of them with eyes and mouths open wide. Other horses and gentlemen seem much more calm, proud of the fact that their horse is drawing the eyes of a crowd depicted on the right hand side. The painting was debuted at the Paris Salon, a great collection of artists and critics that determine the worth of a given artist, and essentially establish the tone of the art scene for that period. The Salon gave wild praise of the piece, giving Bonheur the legitimacy of her male counterparts and solidifying her place as a lasting artist.
Even with many hurdles put in her way, Rosa Bonheur beat the odds and became an incredibly highly regarded artist. Although we can say that she came from a place of privilege, being a white woman with a full family of artists, I cannot say at the end of this examination that this achievement was easy for her. In viewing many of her pieces I get a sense of homeliness, and that I can clearly place myself in the time that the particular painting curates. To evoke this feeling so clearly in the viewers mind is the goal of any artist, and it is why I see Rosa Bonheur as a legend just like many other artists we study, regardless of sex and privilege.
Maria Carrillo-Ortega
Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001
24 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
Charles Willson Peale’s Staircase Group 1795 and George Caleb Bingham’s Raftsmen Playing Cards 1847 are two artworks I’ll be speaking about, and how each artist conveyed their passion and ideas without physically appearing. “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). I interpreted that the sitter depicted by the painter isn’t the true visual focus, but rather the painter who reveals himself through the canvas indirectly by expressing their ideas and passion in a different form. The two men were in a unique position in the newly founded nation that we know as America, which granted Peale and Bingham a fresh canvas for them to leave their mark and push the art world forward. Peale the illusionist broadened the world of art, and Bingham’s romantic view of the frontier, fitting for the newly founded nation.
Charles Willson Peale’s, Staircase Group 1795, and how the double portrait showcasing his sons can be interpreted as an extension of himself even without physically appearing on the canvas himself. At first glance, the portrait doesn’t hold much meaning until you understand Peale’s views and ambitions. The Staircase Group’s popularity stemmed from its thought-provoking composition, and the illusion caused viewers to take another look to see a new window of what art can provide. The two young men in the portrait are Raphaelle and Titian Ramsay, Peale’s two sons. They’re rendered beautifully and in clarity in how lifelike they appear at first glance to be real due to their lifesize. What drives the nail to Peale’s illusion is the physical first step attached and the frame around the portrait uniting the painting to the room, thus becoming another part of the canvas. The use of space around and outside the portrait opens up a whole new dimension than just the wall the canvas resides. It brings us into Peale’s shoes momentarily and we briefly see a part of his life through his eyes with his family. The boys appear to be walking up the stairs, then they’ve turned around toward us, Titian, the figure standing on the top, cutting into the frame as he points upward like he’s inviting the viewer to the upper floor with him and his brother. Raphaelle even pauses to look over his shoulder to see if he was being called upon. Executed by Peale’s keen eye in lighting and careful detail in shadows caused by the frame surrounding the portrait, noting how the light shines on both boys’ faces and background as if the door frame was indeed interfering with the flow of light. Luring us deeper into the trick and subtle details like the admission ticket laying at Raphaelle’s feet as if he carelessly dropped it during his ascent up the steps. It creates a linear visionary trail for us to follow from the step where the ticket lies and steadily moving up to Raphaelle before our eyes end with Titian on the top of the staircase where he’s about to exit the scene. But I took another step after seeing the surface of the painting. I noted Peale created an inviting and relaxing atmosphere because of how he focused on establishing the authenticity by blending the physicality and the architecture to bring us into the scene and experience what he felt. Details like the posture of Raphaelle walking up the stairs with confidence, art supplies in hand, and Titian stopping so we can follow. These actions seen by the boys reflect Peale’s vision of the future, implying what’s in store within the realm of art, but what new innovations are to come for not just his family but for the nation as a whole. Peale didn’t just capture his sons’ profiles, he captured their entire being and beyond that he envisioned what’s to come for himself and his sons as they move up in American life.
George Caleb Bingham’s Raftsmen Playing Cards 1847, a snippet of life on the water filled with simplicity, entranced tranquility of the men’s life down the river. The quiet moment among the six raftsmen aboard the raft, the majority of them preoccupied in a card game right in the middle of the raft, one man alone deep in thought and the other gently maneuvering the raft along the calm stream. You see the two players are immersed in the game, the man on the right holds a hard expression as he carefully reviews his cards to decide his next move while the man over his shoulder watches closely. Then the man in the middle dressed in green tones patiently waits for his crewmate to further the game. The familiarity between the men is evident based on how they play games, walk around barefoot, and enjoy the peace floating down the river together. The atmosphere creates an invitation for the viewer to participate in the intimate occasion the raftsmen have. The sitters of his painting aren’t anyone in particular because it allows anyone including himself to be able to put themselves in the sitter’s spot and immerse themselves in the scenery. The lighting helps keep the focus on the men, their clothes bright in color compared to their surroundings, while the river and distance become hazy. This detail could be Bingham’s view of the American frontier, with people living in the moment while traveling toward a future that lies wide open and unknown. His view of the early American dream showcases a stable, harmonious region of the self-made man venturing out into the unknown while still maintaining a sense of calm instead of painting the unclaimed territory as dangerous and tension-driven. Life on the Missouri River through Bingham’s lens is more romanticized, the tranquility of the river, and he shares it with us, viewers, through these six raftsmen sitting back in a relaxing game of cards while letting themselves move into the unknown. The portrait not only captures the realism of the American frontier, but it captures the soul of America.
Bingham and Peale approached art differently from realism, illusionism to the genre, but each man put their passion into their work. They didn’t just paint the sitter, no instead, they consumed and interpreted the information provided to them to create something much more
engaging and mind-opening.
Maria Carrillo-Ortega
Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001
24 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
Charles Willson Peale’s Staircase Group 1795 and George Caleb Bingham’s Raftsmen Playing Cards 1847 are two artworks I’ll be speaking about, and how each artist conveyed their passion and ideas without physically appearing. “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). I interpreted that the sitter depicted by the painter isn’t the true visual focus, but rather the painter who reveals himself through the canvas indirectly by expressing their ideas and passion in a different form. The two men were in a unique position in the newly founded nation that we know as America, which granted Peale and Bingham a fresh canvas for them to leave their mark and push the art world forward. Peale the illusionist broadened the world of art, and Bingham’s romantic view of the frontier, fitting for the newly founded nation.
Charles Willson Peale’s, Staircase Group 1795, and how the double portrait showcasing his sons can be interpreted as an extension of himself even without physically appearing on the canvas himself. At first glance, the portrait doesn’t hold much meaning until you understand Peale’s views and ambitions. The Staircase Group’s popularity stemmed from its thought-provoking composition, and the illusion caused viewers to take another look to see a new window of what art can provide. The two young men in the portrait are Raphaelle and Titian Ramsay, Peale’s two sons. They’re rendered beautifully and in clarity in how lifelike they appear at first glance to be real due to their lifesize. What drives the nail to Peale’s illusion is the physical first step attached and the frame around the portrait uniting the painting to the room, thus becoming another part of the canvas. The use of space around and outside the portrait opens up a whole new dimension than just the wall the canvas resides. It brings us into Peale’s shoes momentarily and we briefly see a part of his life through his eyes with his family. The boys appear to be walking up the stairs, then they’ve turned around toward us, Titian, the figure standing on the top, cutting into the frame as he points upward like he’s inviting the viewer to the upper floor with him and his brother. Raphaelle even pauses to look over his shoulder to see if he was being called upon. Executed by Peale’s keen eye in lighting and careful detail in shadows caused by the frame surrounding the portrait, noting how the light shines on both boys’ faces and background as if the door frame was indeed interfering with the flow of light. Luring us deeper into the trick and subtle details like the admission ticket laying at Raphaelle’s feet as if he carelessly dropped it during his ascent up the steps. It creates a linear visionary trail for us to follow from the step where the ticket lies and steadily moving up to Raphaelle before our eyes end with Titian on the top of the staircase where he’s about to exit the scene. But I took another step after seeing the surface of the painting. I noted Peale created an inviting and relaxing atmosphere because of how he focused on establishing the authenticity by blending the physicality and the architecture to bring us into the scene and experience what he felt. Details like the posture of Raphaelle walking up the stairs with confidence, art supplies in hand, and Titian stopping so we can follow. These actions seen by the boys reflect Peale’s vision of the future, implying what’s in store within the realm of art, but what new innovations are to come for not just his family but for the nation as a whole. Peale didn’t just capture his sons’ profiles, he captured their entire being and beyond that he envisioned what’s to come for himself and his sons as they move up in American life.
George Caleb Bingham’s Raftsmen Playing Cards 1847, a snippet of life on the water filled with simplicity, entranced tranquility of the men’s life down the river. The quiet moment among the six raftsmen aboard the raft, the majority of them preoccupied in a card game right in the middle of the raft, one man alone deep in thought and the other gently maneuvering the raft along the calm stream. You see the two players are immersed in the game, the man on the right holds a hard expression as he carefully reviews his cards to decide his next move while the man over his shoulder watches closely. Then the man in the middle dressed in green tones patiently waits for his crewmate to further the game. The familiarity between the men is evident based on how they play games, walk around barefoot, and enjoy the peace floating down the river together. The atmosphere creates an invitation for the viewer to participate in the intimate occasion the raftsmen have. The sitters of his painting aren’t anyone in particular because it allows anyone including himself to be able to put themselves in the sitter’s spot and immerse themselves in the scenery. The lighting helps keep the focus on the men, their clothes bright in color compared to their surroundings, while the river and distance become hazy. This detail could be Bingham’s view of the American frontier, with people living in the moment while traveling toward a future that lies wide open and unknown. His view of the early American dream showcases a stable, harmonious region of the self-made man venturing out into the unknown while still maintaining a sense of calm instead of painting the unclaimed territory as dangerous and tension-driven. Life on the Missouri River through Bingham’s lens is more romanticized, the tranquility of the river, and he shares it with us, viewers, through these six raftsmen sitting back in a relaxing game of cards while letting themselves move into the unknown. The portrait not only captures the realism of the American frontier, but it captures the soul of America.
Bingham and Peale approached art differently from realism, illusionism to the genre, but each man put their passion into their work. They didn’t just paint the sitter, no instead, they consumed and interpreted the information provided to them to create something much more
engaging and mind-opening.
Brian Martinez
Art 474
Robert Tracy
3/25/21
First Opinion Paper
For this paper I chose to dive into Mary Stevenson Cassatt’s painting Mrs. Duffee Seated on a Striped Sofa, Reading. Putting on the lens of the quote “By portraits I do not mean the outline and coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” by Lord Chesterfield. To start, the painting mainly caught my eye because it is very painterly. You can see the artist render some areas in a smooth way, but others are loose and free. The brush stroke are very relevant in the visual aesthetic of the painting. The quote felt perfect because the painting itself is beautiful and aesthetic, but you can tell there is lots of substance and context. To myself the quote is a way of expressing how portraits not only attempt to achieve beauty or aesthetic qualities, but to capture the soul of humanity. Cassatt does a great job of capturing the soul of a person, while still painting in a very beautiful manner.
The Painting is of a white woman sitting on a striped sofa reading a book. She has red hair that’s put into some sort of bun, and is wearing a colorful dress with red stripes, but also a large blue patch going right down the middle. The rendering makes the blue parts of the dress look like silk fabric. She is leaning on her left arm while holding the book with her right, and it seems she’s about 1/ 4 of the way through the book. The sofa is striped like the title says, and it seems to in some sort of moments have sheen to it. The painting was made in 1876, and the clothes and furniture really give the nod to that era. The painting consists mainly of warm tones and has a loosely rendered raw umber background.
Cassatt has a beautiful way of rendering, but the context here is very thought provoking. First thought is about the couch, we all can immediately associate that with being inside the setting of a home. Generally in a living room, but can also be in other rooms. So the painting itself is based within a home. In modern times we understand the struggles that women had to overcome to gain rights to do anything in our society, so Cassatt is making a statement. Now this woman is reading, which I imagine in 1876 was a symbol of some kind of status. There are many signs of status or class in this painting, from the dress to the couch. Books may have just been available to those who could afford them, but then education may not have been offered to a housewife. Therefore they would have to be self-taught and put forth their own effort to educate themselves.
That part of the painting is where I believe Cassatt captured the heart and mind of humanity. We have this tendency to endure the worst and find a way to come out on top. This painting shows a woman who is being put down by society, and not being allowed to even have a formal education within a school. Therefore just adapting and finding a way to teach herself what she wants to know. Expanding the mind and adapting to the circumstances. Humans have a way of adapting to any environment, and if society puts a group of people down they generally find a way to overcome it. Through the resilience of those who break the rules and push on ahead. Someone like Mrs. Duffee here who went against societal norms is pushing humanity forward through one small effort.
Cassatt is also doing her part by showing what the reality of being a woman in those times was like. Having to self educate while also being pushed to marry and have kids. We almost still have the same today, but because of the efforts of people before us there isn’t much pressure anymore. Cassatt is also doing what artists do best, and shining a light on a part of society that needs to be seen. She is a woman painter and what else to paint but the truth of her reality. Art has a way of entering another person’s mind and persuading them on an idea, because it is showing them a reality that is not only true but possible. Cassatt was in a way saying that women can and will be educated in America. She was paving a new future for the women of the future.
Kylelain Corinth
Professor Tracy
ART 472-1001 & ART 474-1002
25 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
When artists shifted their focus towards nature and the sublime, they were met with both criticism and admiration. The following quote demonstrates how many felt about artist’s less than perfectly replicated landscapes. “Your color is not true; all these contrasts of light and dark make me think that you paint by moonlight, and as for your life studies, they resemble nature as a violin case resembles a violin” (Pierre Guerin, quoted in Batissier, Biographiede Gericault, in La Revue du XIX Siecle, 1842). While an artist has their own intention for a piece, it is still subjected to the interpretations of others. Where one may find beauty in the less structured interpretations of nature, others see a rejection of the skills and teachings of the masters. Nature, specifically, is a totalizing and ever-changing space. As such, it is not always the intention of the artist to paint a landscape as they would a portrait, paying attention to only what one sees and not feels. To paint the sublime of nature is to intertwine oneself with the overwhelm and emotional experience of the surrounding landscape. Consequently, one’s depiction of a landscape has one’s experience woven into it. The landscape rendered may resemble nature in some respects and seem wholly different in others. Hannibal Crossing the Alps by Joseph Mallord Willaim Turner demonstrates the duality in painting landscapes.
Many landscape paintings are soft, with a lightness that inspires feelings of serenity and calm. In contrast, I was overwhelmed by the twisting composition and shadowed scenery of Hannibal Crossing the Alps. The effortless harmony between the light and dark in addition to an absence of a detailed narrative to follow depicted in Hannibal Crossing the Alps demands the attention of the viewer. It required me to search the painting to uncover quiet details, to form a whole picture of the piece. While viewing the piece my emotions were often pulled in multiple directions. With the light shining through the left side of the painting, it allowed for a space of hope. However, as my eye traveled further right, the looming presence of the storm washed the peace away. The natural landscape was manipulated by Turner to inspire these feelings in response to not only the sublime of nature but also what the setting represented for so many people during the time.
A wave of black storm is crashing down on the Alps on the right side of the canvas. The soft shadows and blurs of blacks and greys threatening to swallow the orange sun shining bright above the famous crossing create a sense of despair. Furthermore, at first glance, there appears to be the curves and edges of a mountain, but when given more time to consider, actually resembles an avalanche advancing down the mountain into the valley below. I felt inconsequential in response to the power of this uncontrollable force of nature. When I first saw the painting, I imagined myself standing within the landscape Turner rendered. The push and pull of the storm sweeping over the mountain and the avalanche advancing down towards the nearly invisible soldiers drew me into the artwork. I recognized feeling inconsequential in response to the soldiers having no ability to defend against the vast expanse of the natural landscape. The immensity and totalizing experience of nature that Turner was able to communicate within this piece opened my eyes to how little effect humans have on these natural forces at work. It is easy to forget the terrible power that nature holds. The fate of the soldiers traveling through the Alps while these storms were raging was entirely dependent upon the swirling mists and smudged shadows of winds and rains falling down upon them.
My experience of this piece is everchanging, causing the flow of my thoughts and emotions to sweep through my mind just as the brush strokes in Hannibal Crossing the Alps do. Turner’s landscape painting creates a space that fosters an internal and mindful experience of nature and the sublime, allowing one to lose oneself when met with this other. The ineffability of the sublime becomes the artwork of the landscape painting and the natural setting itself. Turner does not place emphasis on explicit detail, instead favoring soft lines and impressions of forms in the distance. Through which, Turner sought a deeper truth to express more than what could be written, heard, and seen. He wished to express honesty in his depiction of the Alps, as opposed to the often-romanticized artworks of other artists before him of such landscapes. Images became his articulation, communicating to me the awe and fear one must feel in the presence of a magnificent landscape such as the Alps. My experience transcended the physical, allowing me to move with the flow of the layered and blending colors that swirl across the battlegrounds and mountains. Similar to the winds and rains of storms that are at once peaceful and terrible, echoing the paradoxical qualities of nature.
Where Turner’s driven brushstrokes depict the sublime, expressing emotion and spirituality, landscape paintings in America during the nineteenth century often conveyed a different message. Americans rendered landscapes to appease society, ascribing societal values as the meaning behind such works. These sentiments include moral views and religious views among other ideals. Fifteen years after Turner’s Hannibal Crossing the Alps, in America, Thomas Cole painted Last of the Mohicans. While the painting has perimeters with clear borders to where the landscape ends, and the surrounding world begins, it appears as if the natural scene Cole rendered stretches on forever. Observing this painting reveals a lush forest of oranges, reds, greens, and browns all distinguished yet blending seamlessly together. Towering mountains can be seen stretching into the distance, surrounding the deep valley below. I was especially drawn to the figures standing in a circle in the middle of the valley. Similar to Turner’s piece, the people appear small and insignificant in the presence of the surrounding landscape. As my eye traveled along the canvas I recognized how when one steps into nature, they become a part of it. From the perspective of Cole’s painting, the people look as if they are a part of the landscape. This realization invokes a sense of peace in that in the presence of such a force, people are the same. We are all just visitors of a place that exists in entirely separate from us and that will continue to exist long after we are gone. Societal ideals in both Europe and America shifted from people viewing nature as something that they should change and control to recognizing it as the spiritual and magnificent presence that it is.
The soft glowing blue of the sky in Last of the Mohicans shines down on the tense meeting below. In the clearing, the figures dressed in burnt reds, light blues, and deep yellows are illuminated by the sun. Dissimilar to Hannibal Crossing the Alps, in which the figures gathered on the mountain are overshadowed by dreary greys and ominous skies. When looking at the two pieces side by side, the stark contrast between the emotional experience of each piece is evident. Turner’s painting brings up a sense of fear and uncertainty not only in the prescience of the storm but also of the soldier’s futures. In contrast, Cole’s artwork insights feelings of awe and wonder. There is a calmness in the gathered figures, as if they are content to be within the clearing. Moreover, the lightness in the skies, clarity in the distant mountains, and vibrant trees encourage feelings of contentment and optimism. Both artists communicated the sublime of nature in a unique way. Through their works, I was able to experience the sublime, outshining the narrative of the story.
Bernardo Martinez
Robert Tracy
ART 474 Section 1001
21 March 2021
Opinion/Position Paper
According to Oscar Wilde, “every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (The Picture of Dorian Grey, 1891). When one creates art, they have absolute creative freedom to interpret a sitter (or anything in their surroundings) as they see fit. Tone is subjective, so two people can look at the same thing or environment and interpret it in two completely different ways. While an artist can do their best to satisfy their patrons requests, an artist’s creative vision might not necessarily always agree with that of the patron. Despite any potential disagreements, at the end of the day, the artist is the one creating the portrait and therefore it is their vision that makes it into the final painting. If an artist is sacrificing their own creative ideals in order to conform to those of a patron, then they are not truly putting their heart and soul into a piece. In stating that a good portrait is one of the artist, Wilde is essentially stating that one’s artwork is effectively an extension of their true self. Not only can this apply to portraits, but to all other types of paintings as well, especially landscape painting.
The first piece I will be discussing is Martin Johnson Heade’s painting called Approaching Thunder Storm (1859), an oil on canvas piece that stands at 28” x 44”. In an instant, one can recognize a stark contrast between the brightly lit foreground and the dark sky and background. This is rather interesting not only because of its ability to draw the viewer’s attention, but because it gives off a sense of impending danger. One can interpret this piece as an embodiment of the saying “calm before the storm”. In addition, the brightly lit shore that the subject is sitting on extends towards the middle of the piece. Coupled with the small, black body of water that the speaker sits in front of, the shore easily redirects the viewer’s attention to the dark storm ahead. Heade draws attention to the oncoming thunderstorm by having the rest of the background (the mountains and the sailboat) barely take up any space, emphasizing the severity of the storm and providing a nice sense of what lies ahead. It is also worth noting that the mountains on the horizon line begin to appear smaller before reaching a vanishing point near the far right side of the piece. The fading of the mountains could possibly symbolize how stressful times (represented by the storm) can bring forth uncertainty and a lack of confidence as to what will come after. An interesting choice on Heade’s part was the inclusion of a sailboat and a man rowing a canoe off in the distance. Both the sail and the rowing man’s shirt are white, a color typically associated with innocence. This could potentially symbolize how some can be blissfully unaware of what lies ahead and the resulting struggles, once again symbolized by the storm. Alternatively, the contrast between the white objects and the black water might also symbolize optimism and a light shining in the dark. The subject of the piece, the man sitting on the shore, wears a red shirt and stands out against the water in front of him. Red is one of the best colors one can use for drawing attention, so the red shirt lets the viewer know that this man in particular is the subject of the whole piece. In addition, red is used to symbolize danger, so Heade could be trying to allude the belief that the unknown is dangerous. The man also wears a vest and a hat that is the same shade of beige as the shoreline he sits on, possibly symbolizing a desire to adhere to what he is familiar with, fearing the unknown. Despite being in the foreground and therefore closer to the viewer, the man also appears to be ridiculously small compared to the lake, possibly symbolizing nature’s dominance over man. Once again, this is further supported by the massive storm in the sky that appears to overwhelm the background and is slowly creeping towards the man.
Approaching Thunder Storm ties into Wilde’s statement because one can use the formal details of the piece to come up with a much deeper meaning than simply seeing a man sitting on a beach. The true theme of the piece revolves around two universal feelings that most people have experienced at least once in their lives: a fear of the unknown and “the calm before the storm”. Such interpretations exist not because of the subject of the piece but because of the way that Heade portray to create the world around said subject. While this piece is not a portrait, Heade applied his desire to depict the relationship between man and nature in a way that could be easily understood by others. Heade also depicted a scene that was both peaceful and tense at the same time, expressing natural human emotion through his work.
The second piece I would like to discuss is Thomas Cole’s oil on canvas painting called The Voyage of Life: Childhood (1842), which stands at 52” x 78” and is the first of a series of four paintings. The piece depicts a boat emerging from a cave to a bright and sunny surface teeming with plant life. This boat is holding a baby, about to emerge out into the world for the first time, with an angel protecting him. The dark, claustrophobic cave that dominates the left side of the painting provides a stark contrast to the rest of the painting’s rich, green, and bright environment. The cave likely represents how one does not remember life before birth. As a result, one cannot visualize it in any way and therefore cannot associate it with anything, hence the blank darkness. This darkness allows for the bright glow around the angel’s head to draw the viewer’s attention to the boat that the baby is being carried in. The contrast between the dark cave and the angel’s light could be referencing hopeful beginnings and the fact that the child depicted with the angel has their whole life ahead of them. In addition, the angel’s light and robe are both white, a color that represents innocence, possibly alluding to how the child is barely starting out life and can be considered innocent, having done no right or wrong yet. The idea of new beginnings is further supported by the clear sunrise that illuminates the piece’s environment. The expression “dawn of a new day” is often used to refer to a fresh start, so it makes perfect sense for Cole to include a sunrise in a scene with a character emerging from darkness. The lighter tint of blue in the sky could be associated with feelings of tranquility and peace, which one often experiences when going through a fresh start. The green of the plants surrounding the boat is frequently associated with tranquility as well. In addition, the bright green also provides lots of contrast with the darker, oppressive tones within the cave entrance. Green is also associated with nature and life, possibly evoking the sense that the baby in the boat is about to experience life and what it has to offer, which could potentially go in any direction. The notion of going in any direction is supported by the fact that we only see such a small portion of what could be a much larger body of water. This allows the viewer to imagine what could happen next and creates lots of room for interpretation.
The Voyage of Life: Childhood can easily apply to Wilde’s statement because Cole would repeatedly describe painting nature as his passion despite it causing to struggle to find buyers. People at the time were more interested in portraits, which Cole did not find as meaningful. He believed that landscape portraits could be great metaphors for moral and religious values. It is possible that the angel in the painting symbolizes Cole’s desire to use landscape paintings to convey God’s word, especially since the angel appears in all four pieces of Cole’s The Voyage of Life series. According to Cole, the entire series of paintings follows the same person as he goes through life before finally ascending into Heaven in the last piece, Old Age (1842). Cole takes full advantage of this fact to prioritize using the natural environment in order to convey his religious messages and tell each piece’s unique part of the series’ overall story.
Both Heade and Cole are major proponents of the idea of using nature to convey their own ideals and/or a deeper meaning through their work. As they have shown, an artist can use elements in an art work in order to essentially create a portrait of themselves and their beliefs, even if the piece itself is not a portrait per se. A piece does not have to depict a face to be a portrait, it could show anything as long as it reflects its creator’s true feelings about the religion, human emotion, or just the world as a whole, causing said piece to be more than meets the eye.
Mona Hamraee
Professor Tracy
Art 474 – 1001
20 March 2021
First Opinion/Position Paper
“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891).
I agree with Oscar Wilde and I believe this could be also about a landscape with all its features. In my opinion, an artist makes what they see and they choose what the sensation of the piece is. On the off chance that an artist is painting a portrait, the sitter might be showing a specific feeling or feeling into their posture, yet the artist can decipher that present in any capacity they feel.
In this writing, I will be investigating Thomas Cole’ painting called The Voyage of Life: Childhood. Cole had various commissions in the last part of the 1820s to paint his acclaimed perspectives on American Landscapes. However, with his aspiration to paint a “higher style of landscape” to impart his convictions and qualities, Cole started painting huge symbolic works, for example, the five-material arrangement Course of Empire. Cole kept on painting American landscapes during the 1830s and 1840s, yet quite a bit of his energy was centered around making complex nonexistent works, including Departure and Return and The Voyage of Life.
Thomas Cole strongly believed that landscape paintings could give spiritual and strict or religious qualities. Despite the fact that he made extensive progress from his clear portrayals of American view, his more prominent aspiration was to pass on the expression of God through landscapes. As Louis Noble, Thomas Cole’s spiritual advisor and mentor said: “…he wished his canvases at the same moment to speak a language eloquent of God and man, and human life.”
In The Voyage of Life, Cole made a few transformations to make his good and strict messages all the more clear. Rather than the Course of Empire’s stupendous, all encompassing scenes of nature and engineering, flush with subtleties and occurrences, Cole painted The Voyage of Life in a worked on style. He centered his story by painting the unfurling life of one man, instead of the convoluted ascent and fall of a nation. To additional his translation of the arrangement’s representative symbolism, Cole composed illustrative writings to go with each painting. The writings adequately filled in as a perusing ally for the viewers.
The Voyage of Life follows a pioneer’s excursion along the “River of Life.” In “childhood” a brilliant boat rises out of an obscured cavern—a baffling natural source—from which a blissful infant contacts the world with amazement and naivete. Rose light washes the location of fertile beauty as a heavenly figure manages the boat forward.
In “Youth,” the explorer unquestionably accepts control in charge of the boat. Careless in regards to the expanding disturbance and sudden bits of the stream, the traveler intensely endeavors to arrive at an elevated stronghold, meaningful of juvenile desire for notoriety and greatness.
Nature’s fierceness, insidious evil presences, and self-question compromise the voyager in the following work of art, “Manhood.” As Cole said, “The helm of the boat is gone”; the voyager has failed to keep a grip on his life. The holy messenger peers down from the mists as he is spun toward savage rapids and exposed, broke rocks. Just help from above, Cole proposes, can save the voyager from a shocking destiny.
In the arrangement’s last painting, “Old Age,” the stream of life has arrived at the expanse of endlessness where the voyager glides on board his messed up, endured vessel. All indications of nature and “bodily presence” are thrown away. The divine messenger, whom he sees interestingly, coordinates his look toward a calling, delicate light arising out of the splitting mists—the vision of everlasting life.
From the guiltlessness of childhood to the flush of young certainty, through the preliminaries of middle age lastly, to divine salvation, the Voyage of Life inspires the Christian principle of death and revival. Cole’s bold explorer can likewise be deciphered as an embodiment of America—a country at its own young adult phase of advancement.
In conclusion, a snapshot of complete joy never happens in the formation of a masterpiece. The guarantee of it is felt in the demonstration of creation however vanishes towards the finish of the work. For it is then that the painter understands that it is just an image he is painting. Up to that point he had nearly set out to trust that the image may spring to life. Were it not for this, the ideal work of art may be painted, on the fulfillment of which the painter could resign. It is this extraordinary inadequacy that drives him on. Along these lines, the interaction of creation gets important to the painter maybe more than is the image. The interaction, indeed, is propensity framing.
Rylee Jones
ART 474 1001 & ART 472 1001
Robert Tracy
25 March 2021
If we were asked to recall a person that we love, our mind does not immediately go to what they wear or the shape of their body or more often than not, we don’t even think of what they look like altogether. When we recall a person that we love, we think of all the ways in which they became that way. We think of their quirky laugh that fills a room, the favorite memory we have with them when we were young, their favorite foods and what they’d turn their nose up at and all of the little ins and outs of their personality that truly represents their place in our lives. It’s hard to say that you really know a person or can know a person based solely on what they look like, which I believe to be one of the biggest flaws and misconceptions in portraiture. When I think of portrait art, I find that more often than not that it is a little lackluster for me in particular if not done correctly because it is missing just that; the personality of its people.
As an artist myself, drawing the human figure was something that they attempted to teach us in grade school, I practiced in high school, and it is something that I continue to see so commonly fill the sketchbooks of my fellow artists here at university. However, it is very rare that I come across a portrait that really strikes me as a personal piece. I have seen many beautiful portraits that I am sure were very personable to the artist, don’t get me wrong, but finding one that is able to convey in me that same connection to the subject that they might have had with the artist is a very different experience in and of itself. I can look all day at the graying hair on a painting of an artist’s mother or the blue eyes of their first lover, but if the piece is simply done in the matter of just looks, then it is as good to me as being just another well done piece of an otherwise stranger passing by. When I look at art, I want it to resonate with me and bring out a part of me onto the canvas; I am not interested in just another face on the wall. As English nobleman, Lord Chesterfield, puts it best in a letter dated from 1747, “[portraits] do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.”
Now as commonly as it has been for me to come across portraiture work that is missing that crucial element of personality, there is also much to say about the many artist’s work that have left me in awe over how seemingly effortlessly they are able to portray character and emotion in the people they make their subjects, and I have been so lucky as to have experienced a few of them within this class. For instance, William Sydney Mount, a genre painter from the 1800s that well represented American luminicsm, does very well in terms of allowing his audience a glimpse into the life of his subject. In his piece, The Bone Player (1856) we see an African American man in standard clothing of the time holding his instrument and almost portrayed in the fashion as if he were in mid song. Not only is the painting mastered well by means of aesthetics and the quality of the painting itself by showing a bright red-orange bow tie and a worn out hat all in rich colors, it is even more notable how he depicts his subject’s emotions and love for their own art through use of action. We see immediately how Mount chooses to accompany his subject with his instrument, allowing us some insight into the techniques of this bone player as well as what the practice may look like to someone who has never seen it before. This allows room for movement in the piece through the subjects hands that in return, creates more interest and engagement from the audience.
Typically in a portrait, we would most likely see the subject sitting stoically towards the painter, with little to no emotion on their face. Here it is nice to see a change of pace in how Mount would portray a little more personality by incorporating the subject’s instrument. We also can see how Mount incorporates more emotion into the piece in the way he paints his subject’s facial expression of a slightly opened mouth almost as if to show his concentration in his craft or as if he were mid sentence which almost comes across as a snapshot into the life of the bone player and is portrayed as very candid.
I think that I particularly enjoy Mount’s piece because he went beyond focusing on making sure the painting resembled his subject. Instead, he goes even further as to just as successfully making sure that his work resembles his character’s personality and history of what he does. Another really great example of this would also be that of Gilbert Stuart’s portrait painting, Mrs. Richard Yates (1793-94). In this painting, an older woman is depicted sewing in a chair as if to gaze upon the artist painting her and is again, dressed in garb that would be fitting for her time period. The color choice here feels very welcoming and almost like home in a way through Stuart’s use of warm colors, clearly displaying his mastery as a colorist, paying special attention to the tones and creating an ambiance fitting of his subject. However, I think he best represents this homey feeling in showing the emotion behind her eyes. It’s almost as if you can see the history and the stories that are stored behind the slightly drooped, tired lids and gleaming eyes of the woman; they are soft but still stern almost like a mother or grandmother. You can see how much she has truly experienced in her lifetime as not only a woman of her age, but as a woman in general. There is no doubt that the woman of her time experienced much in the ways of less-than treatment as well as all of the duties that came with running a household. I feel as though Stuart does a more than impressive job at portraying all of those feelings and emotions wrapped up in a little bow prominently by the ways in which he chooses to express his subject’s emotions behind these eyes. Stuart has such a way of depicting purposeful facial expressions and it is clear here just how well he has mastered it.
There is also something to say about Stuart’s attention to detail in Mrs. Richard’s practice as well, very similar to that of Mount’s, The Bone Player. Particularly, when viewing the woman’s tension in her hands as she holds her needle and thread, it comes across as very purposeful and deliberate as if this is a practice that she has been doing for the majority of her lifetime or very second nature to her. Although seemingly minuscule in importance, through this simple detail of the hand, we as the audience can easily get the idea that Mrs. Richard’s is obviously skilled and has many years of practice under her belt in what she does, whether that be sewing or serving as more of a representation of a deeper strength within her such as running the household as a woman. Overall this choice that Stuart makes in his subject allows for coming across and taking in this piece of work all the more interesting and engaging for the viewer.
When looking at a portrait, as I said, I want to see the same level of love and intention put into the work as if they were recalling their loved ones. I believe that overall it makes the work feel special, well rounded and actually thought out for the subject in question. If we choose to paint anyone, we as artists owe it to them and to ourselves to represent people the way they were intended. As people, we are more than just our looks and the outlines of our bodies, but we are made up of moments and laughs and memories and favorite colors and first times and lasts. We embody beliefs and religions, mantras and motivational speeches, and we are far more complex than just the clothes on our backs. When an artist starts seeing their subject as an already living piece of art to study and not just a collection of pretty faces and bodies, I think that’s truly when they’ve hit the nail on the head and can begin creating a piece of portraiture that is well deserving of a person’s entire lifetime sketched out onto a single canvas.
Jazmin Navarro
Robert Tracy
ART 674-1001
25 March 2021
Who are the people in our lives really?
The people who we interact with have an influences on us; even if just a small one. Artists have an especially great talent and eye for understanding the people in their lives and interpreting their personalities into portraits. Whether some of those thoughts and interpretations are negative or positive entirely depends on the artists own ideas and this can also be true of self portraits. That is why I agree with the thought that “One is never satisfied with the portrait of a person one knows.” (Johann Wolfgang van Goethe, Elective Affinities, 1808). This thought that Wolfgang presents can be seen in: Charles Wilson Peale’s Lamplight Portrait, John Singer Sargent Madame X, and in various other artist medium to date.
Charles Wilson Peale was a painter, naturalist, soldier, and entrepreneur. In his paintings he often did portraits but also had a large interest in museums, science, and some landscapes. In Peale’s Lamplight Portrait of his brother James one can begin to see a huge jump in skill and effort as compared to his past portraits. One may say that some of the improvement came from practice and learning new skill; however, there is more than just an improvement of skill that has happened from his stale past portrait of George Washington. In the portrait of his brother there is a sense of a personality, a sense of a personal moment that is being had. A kind of moment that may not have been had if the subject is not comfortable with an artist. There is variety in this portrait; variety in lighting, variety in shadows, variety in textures, and even variety of emotions that are evoked. The half smirk half grimace that James has creates a somewhat private emotion which is somewhat contradicted with the lighting that is being cast on the scene. This evolved expression of emotions and textures in such a simple scene is further proof that portraits of those people in ones personal lives make much more of an impact on artist and their work than even some idols. In the portrait of George Washington (in contrast to that of James) there are still shadows and textures that can be seen but they are somewhat flat similar the emotions that are portrayed in this portrait; both figures (Washington, and the man in the foreground) have singular emotions from their smiles to their eyes. All of this to say that Peale’s work supports the statement that an artists will never be happy with works of people they know; artists will continue to work in order to show the audience everything they want to tell about the patron.
John Singer Sargent, the painter of the Madame X portrait, once said “Every time I paint a portrait, I lose a friend.”. The price of painting a portrait of someone that one already knows is, in Sargent’s opinion, the loss of that person and the inability to paint them perfectly; the inability to capture all the details of that person and their personality, no matter how much time is spent in trying to get it right. For his Madame X portrait that took over a year to complete he got to know Madame Gautreau more personally and I think that may have been part of the reason that he chose to start over on the portrait. Realizing some of the flaws that he had made along the way combined with the new perceptions led to the final portrait that we know as Madame X. The portrait is acknowledged for its elegance and refinement. The model, her husband , and the Parisian society all had very strong reactions of shock from the portrait; however, there were also some strong negative reactions from other people. Sargent captured quite a lot in his portrait that others were not able to in similar portraits of Madame Gautreau.
In addition to artists not being satisfied with portraits of those people in their lives there are also other art mediums that have the same effect; music is the first example that comes to mind. There are many albums that are not released for years or even decades that are written about a friend, lover, or even written about the artist themselves. Many times the trigger for the release of a certain song or album is the death of either the muse or of the artist themselves; however, sometimes it can be a symbolic closing of a chapter that leads to the release of the artists music. Other forms of art also have this phenomenon but, it is most prevalent in music, in my opinion, because of how large the music industry is and the vast amount of money that can be made from the release.
In the portraits that we have studied thus far in the semester we have seen how the thought “One is never satisfied with the portrait of a person one knows.” (Johann Wolfgang van Goethe, Elective Affinities, 1808) can be very true. The portraits: Lamplight Portrait and Madame X by Charles Wilson Peale and John Singer Sargent respectively both illustrate this point effectively. There are also many modern day examples that illustrate that this can be true of not only portraits but also of other media such as music and that it can be true of ones self as well (as we ourselves are people the we know).
Haley Hitchcock
Professor Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001
25 March 2021
Oscar Wilde remarked that “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” This thought intrigued me, for I have never been a good portrait artist myself so I do not know first hand the experience of capturing someone else in art. I understand the underlying meaning of the sentence, though. Art is all shifted through different perspectives, including the artists and the viewers. To capture something in paint or charcoal is only the reflection of how you perceive the world. How the artist views the sitter and chooses to portray them in the two-dimensional space is all subjective. While the artist attempts to capture the physical essence of the sitter, the expression of the painter always dominates the piece.
This quote from Oscar Wilde made me reflect upon Alice Neel’s work, specifically her piece “Pregnant Julie and Algis.” This piece from 1967 is a portrait that features two figures lying upon what looks to be a blanketed surface. The figures are laying next to each other, one arm around each other with the masculine looking figure sitting upright and his left arm draped around the feminime figure. Her right arm is lifted up, clutching onto the arm of the man. We are observing them from the side and slightly above, their feet pointing to the left. The masculine figure is fully clothed from head to toe while the feminime figure is completely naked. There is a very light beige blank wall that surrounds them and only the patterned blanket to ground them.
This artwork, in the simplest terms, is of a heterosexual couple lounging about in what appears to be a bedroom. If you approach anyone and ask them to imagine what that sentence would look like, everyone would interpret it differently and visualize the scene individually to themselves. Alice Neel’s choice in evoking her personal feelings into this simple concept was to provide a rawness into the scene. The woman is lounging naked, her left leg straight out, but her right knee bent, exposing her genitalia to the viewer. Her pregnant stomach is pronounced and her breasts are exposed, leaving her bare. Typically, naked women are captured in art in sensual poses or situations, but she is comfortable and relaxed, not positioning herself to satisfy or please anyone else. Her expression is calm, but somewhat annoyed, as if the viewer was disturbing her peace and quiet, or that she dared you to say anything to her. Neel has remarked about sex and gender not being a crucial part of her studio, which is evident in the choice to present Julie as naked and exposed, but not vulnerable. She normalizes this view of naked pregnant women that some might not even experience in real life. The focus is also on the woman, as she is in front of Algis, who lays relaxed and stoic against the wall. He has a neutral expression that is slightly covered up by the head of the woman. His legs are crossed and his black sock-covered feet are pointed out. His presence does not dominate the subject, but feels as a support behind Julie.
Neel also uses her style to put her own portrait within the scene. She captures the people in the image with a cartoon and caricature style. There is light detail like the depth of browns in Julie’s hair and shading of Algis’ facial structure, as well as the pattern of the blanket that allows you to emphasize with the subjects. It is realistic in its nature to grab hold of the viewer enough for slight shock value, but with a soft illustration style that gives you a more personal tone. This painting feels intimate, not only because of the figures but also because it feels like a friend drew this. This looks like it was painted by someone who is familiar with Julie and Algis and really captured her interpretation of their souls. I can see the personality within the faces that could only be caricatured by someone with love. Neel’s works feel somehow familiar and friendly, letting you comfortably take in her work. It is easy to digest and understand, thanks to her more muted color palette of browns, whites, and blacks. The only vivid color being the blanket, but even that is comforting because it is enveloping the couple.
Neel remarks that painting for her was like therapy because she “told it as it was,” and that it “takes a lot of courage in life to tell it how it is.” Her honest nature and views of the world definitely reflects in her paintings. She includes details that might not be generally regarded as beautiful or worthwhile, such as bringing to life some parts of pregnancy that aren’t usually discussed. This truthful portrait is exactly what Neel sees and witnesses, and it’s great that we can see from her perspective.
To capture a human within a two-dimensional work is difficult and often takes years of practice to master. The art of portrait has fallen over the decades, but it still remains a highly respected art. For an artist to capture the human emotion and feeling within art is very difficult and often comes with a different direction than what the sitter intended. Alice Neel manages to paint her portrait and perception of herself and her life within her works. Her honest and up close views of women show how she views others and herself.
Alexandra Moctezuma
ART 474 sec 1001
17 March 2021
Opinion Paper 1
The Beauty Behind Portraiture
The study of the creation of portrait paintings created throughout history by some of the world’s most gifted artists is one that should never be exhausted. Portraits, aside from providing us with a product of great precision and talent, can also provide us with a greater look and perhaps even understanding of those they are depicting. Artists, when they truly love and understand their craft, can do more with portraits of their sitters than just present them in the most appealing way. The deeper aspect of portraiture can be succinctly summarized by the following quote by Lord Chesterfield: “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man” (in a letter dated 1747). It is with statements like these that we can gain a much greater appreciation for the portraiture craft, much of which was created long before our time.
To better understand what is meant by portraits that present “the inside of the heart and mind of man,” it is best to delve into the work of a specific artist and how it is that personal style can contribute to this characteristic of portraiture. In this case, American artist Thomas Eakins (1844-1916) is a great example of an artist that created his pieces with extreme levels of depth and detail. Belonging to the realism and impressionism movements, Eakins has long been considered one of the greatest American painters in history. His pieces range from portraits to landscapes and scenes of life, all which demonstrate the level of mastery Eakins possessed as an artist. In his pieces of patrons, however, the viewer can notice certain details of his sitters that many would easily disregard. It is these smallest of details that bring the piece together and allow the viewer to feel as if they know and understand what the sitter could have been feeling, thinking, etc., in that very moment.
The first piece to take a closer look at is Portrait of Mary Adeline Williams, 1899. Miss Williams was a very close friend of Eakins and his family, and a repeat sitter for Eakins during his career. This specific portrait of Williams was the first of two created in consecutive years, depicting her in a very serious manner. Compositionally, it is a very simple piece: she sits, turned slightly to the right, dressed very modestly in a black dress with a high white collar, with a soft shadow cast across half of her face. The background is also very simple, allowing the viewer’s full attention to be given to Williams herself. At first glance, it looks like nothing more than an exceptionally well down portrait, but upon further look, the viewer can begin to notice the details Eakins made sure to include that would possibly let the reader into the mind of Williams. For one, he included an extreme level of detail in her facial features, which in a portrait piece can really define the piece as a whole. He painted her with her pursed lips, undereye circles, and slightly furrowed brow, all things that another portraiture artist might easily disregard in order to have the sitter appear livelier and aesthetically pleasing. Eakins, however, made these characteristics the center focus of the piece in the best way possible. As part of the audience, one might feel that they understand or relate to what could have caused Williams to have such an expression at the time of her portrait. Aside from the attention that way given to the facial expression, Eakins also gave her dress a great preciseness that, in realism, can add to the connection a viewer has with a piece given that they can imagine what it would be like to feel the piece of fabric itself.
Another great, and perhaps unconventional, example of Eakins’ amazing talent for portraiture is his own 1902 Self-portrait. It is an interesting concept for artists to create a self-portrait given that they could choose to depict themselves in any way they choose. Eakins kept it very simple and straightforward, with a plain background and a classic pose. He sits facing the viewer directly, dressed in a three-piece suit, but just like the Williams piece, the detail is in his facial expression. Again, Eakins did not shy away from leaving in what other artists might consider imperfections that may be easily corrected. From his ruffled hair to his own undereye circles, looking at his slightly furrowed brow and borderline smirk, the viewer almost gets a sense of what Eakins might say in the moment he was captured. He seems indifferent at first glance, but upon looking closer at his eyes, more can be interpreted. In a way, it almost seems as if Eakins is attempting to hold the viewer’s eye contact in an effort to transmit a certain thought or message solely through a glance.
Returning to the quote that summarizes this great element of portraiture, with these two examples, Eakins demonstrates the way he really did use his skills to allow the viewer “inside the heart and mind of man.” Eakins focused on adding the most detail to the sitter’s face, including his own, which itself can be considered a great feat. Despite his paintings being very simple in both composition and content, the way that he used all of his abilities to ensure that the facial expressions captured as much of what the sitter’s person is like beyond the surface is what is truly impressive. The quote by Lord Chesterfield not only accurately defines what Eakins was able to do with his portraiture work, it also describes what a lot of great artists can do with their portrait work that contribute to the beauty of portrait work as a whole. This type of art is one that should always be appreciated, and when the viewer can get more than just the surface level appearance of the sitter, the better the connection that can be formed with the piece of art and its subject.
Jasmine Pashley
Professor Robert Tracy
***ART 474/ART 472***
25 March 2021
Whistler The White Girl: Symphony in White #1
James Abbott McNeil Whistler was a map maker, cartographer, an artist of the American Renaissance, and creator to piece The White Girl: Symphony in White #1. Since Whistler was no stranger in trying out new things, this painting proved to be an experiment of color (or lack of) for the focal point, meaning it serves a greater purpose to Whistler than the subject shown. This ties in with the quote, “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891). At first glance, the painting just seems to be simple, of a young maiden looking at the viewer, but if looked at closely there may be a few more surprising imagery that Whistler added purposefully. To reiterate Oscar Wilde’s quote, this piece was more for Whistler than the subject (sitter).
At first glance, one immediately sees a young girl in a white dress. It is said that the model is of Whistler’s mistress Joanna Heffernan. Her hair and eyebrows are of a ginger color, her lips being just a shade lighter. These colors stand out the most for the top part of the painting as it contrasts greatly. Her eyes are of a light blue, the brightest part of the maiden’s features though very hard to see from afar. Her expression is one that is neutral or perhaps a little somber; it seems the mouth is downturned just the tiniest bit. It is hard to tell what she may be thinking while patiently waiting to be painted, but that was not too important to Whistler. This is a piece of experimentation not narrative, so the purpose is fulfilled and made clear.
The dress, although white, is certainly one of the first things the viewer will see as it takes up most of the canvas. The collar is rounded and a murky-gray color. The puff on the shoulders and the sleeves have shadows of the same color as the collar; this begins a trend with the rest of the dress. A ribbon tied in a bow cinches the waist of the woman leaving the rest of the cloth to drape more naturally over her figure. The main component of the dress is of an ivory color compared to the sleeves and the color which are a shade darker to establish their shapes. There are some folds in the chest part of the dress, some intentional wrinkles, but not underneath where the bow cinches the waist. The wrinkles on the chest can be seen on the sleeves as well since it follows the same style. The most interesting part of this dress is that it is against a white background even though it is white itself. The flower that the woman holds in her left hand also appears to be a white lily and is almost easy to miss if it were not for the green of the stem. As stated earlier, this is a piece of experimentation for Whistler, one of what white on white would look like and if it is just as impactful.
The white curtain is very peculiar indeed. Upon closer look there seems to be a floral pattern. When looking at the pattern from afar, it is a little hard to distinguish each flower. When looking at it up close, it is easier to make out the flowers yet it is still a little abstract when it comes to their borders. The shapes are distinguishable by the same murky-gray of the collar and sleeves. Whistler does an excellent job when it comes to folds in cloth. The curtains overlap themselves a little bit when they could have just been easily straightened out to make it less difficult to paint. On the right side of the curtain, there is a kind of shine on it making the curtain gleam on a certain fold. It is very enriching since it might be the light of coming through a covered window from behind as this light source. The beam of light is easy to miss when still viewing up closely, so this part is one where you need to take a step back to see.
Continuing down the painting, it almost startled me since I was looking at it up close; there is the face of a former being, the pelt of a wolf. I did not see the face immediately as I was focused on the woman, so this was a surprise. The wolf’s face seems to still be full of life; the eyes are wide open and the mouth shows all of its fangs as if it were a warning to back off. It is almost uncanny since its eyes pierce through the audience and fills me with a sense of helplessness the wolf seems to have. The body and limbs are laid out flat as if it were under a steam roller. With each visible brush stroke of Whistler, he is able to capture how fluffy the pelt still is even though it might have been trampled by human feet dozens of times. Another unsettling part is how the woman stands calmly on top of the pelt seemingly graceful while the lifeless wolf is still portrayed to be a frightening beast. She seems so relaxed as I could never be comfortable enough to even own taxidermy.
Underneath the wolf, there is a tan rug with a blue pattern. From afar, you can see blue flowers in the rug with green stems, but looks abstract up close. It is best seen as a whole, since the brush strokes can be individually seen upon closer inspection. The rug may not even be a rug since the flower pattern seems to be geometric. It could be a woven mat where it was not made of cloth but perhaps more like a bamboo sheet tied together. This was most likely from another country. It is interesting that there is a rug underneath the wolf pelt “rug” since why would someone need two of them? The answer is that both of these rugs must have been a sign of wealth, or at least being very well off. A wolf pelt that had to be cleaned and have the head stuffed probably cost a hefty sum. The rug seems to be of a unique pattern, probably had to be imported, must have cost quite a bit too. I find it also ironic for the poor wolf to be laid upon the “flower bed” of a rug as it would probably remain there for years.
There also appear to be more flowers on top of the wolf and the tan rug. They seem to be of a variety and are easier to see when more closely to the painting. The flowers are lain where the stems are all facing the right. I wonder why they were put there? It may have been that Whistler wanted more pops of color to contrast with the white curtain and dress and only one of the flowers (a hyacinth?) is white.
Even though this piece is more of an experiment according to Whistler, it appears that there are a lot of floral significations, and as you may know flowers have a lot of meaning; their own language. The first flower we can barely see is the one the woman is holding. It is a white lily which signifies purity and innocence. The color of the flower may reflect the woman and the environment in which she is innocent through the color of the dress and curtain. It makes it ironic as a pure maiden stands atop a ferocious animal. If I didn’t know better, I would have thought this was Little Red Riding Hood with the Wolf since a ginger-haired girl is on top of a slain wolf! There are also flowers on the white curtain that can only be seen when light shines on it at certain angles. The flowers on bottom may have meaning as well, but since there is a variety, I’m still convinced it was only for contrast. The blue flowers of the tan rug may symbolize peace and tranquility as that is their meaning in the flower world and in which the wolf rests. Even if it was unintentional, there were too many flowers to deny a potential meaning.
Emily Fischer
ART 474 1001
25 March 2021
Opinion Paper #1
(Mary Cassatt, In the Box, 1879)
“By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (English nobleman Lord Chesterfield, in a letter dated 1747)
Born in Allegheny City, Pennsylvania in 1844, Mary Cassatt was an American painter and feminist who faced discrimination in the art world for being a woman. Known as a collector and a portraitist, she was often restricted from exhibiting her own work freely, and unlike the male artists of her time, the subjects of her work usually had to depict “homemaker” environments to be widely accepted. Things like mothers at home, scenes of the house… with nary a portrait made of any person that was not a fellow woman at home. To hone her skills and harness her power, Cassatt depicted women at home reading or socializing or attending theater, all of which spoke to her desire to show the world that the women in her society were learning, were educated, and were of equal standing despite what the restrictions upon her and others like her said. One such piece to showcase this was In the Box (1879), an oil-on-canvas work that depicted a pair of women at the theater.
As aforementioned, women attending theater was one such subject Cassatt highlighted because it was real, it was happening—she and women like her were not bound to the home, and did not have to be. At the time, however, leaning away from domesticity was most often regulated to excursions to the theater for Cassatt, but it did not make the feeling any less real. I feel that part of the power in her paintings of the theater is depicting only women, which is the case for In the Box as well.
From the range of orange-reds to ochres that define the theater and the objects related to it, to the pale oranges and whites of the women’s skin and outfits, In the Box is a visual buffet of beautiful brushwork. Composited on the right side of the piece, two women painted at the bust sit in an opera box and observe the events of the theater “off-camera,” with one of the women looking left with a pair of opera glasses. The women’s forms—their heads, necks, shoulders, and arms that are visible—are rendered and painted in believable ways, but things like the opera glasses and the fan one woman holds and the flower in one of the woman’s hair or their dresses were clearly painted with Impressionist techniques. The viewer relies on the impression of the objects made with particular strokes and colors to tell what they are, so even without any sort of rendering or definition on the opera glasses, I could tell from the woman’s posture and context clues that she is indeed holding opera glasses. Similarly, the background (most of the left side of the painting) is also a result of Impressionist technique. The auburn coloring implies where each level of the audience’s boxes are established, each with a slight curve to indicate the roundness of the auditorium. Within these defined rectangles there are strokes of layered colors—the ochres, some browns, near-blacks, and some of the brighter pale oranges from the women appear too—all providing the impression of people in the theater, without Cassatt having to detail each person. It’s things like that that make Impressionism and Impressionist techniques so fascinating to me, and really speaks of Cassatt’s skill in portraying things she is familiar with and enjoys.
I speak confidently of Impressionism in this piece because Cassatt learned from an Impressionist, a man named Edgar Degas. He was a French Impressionist painter who Cassatt learned from; looking between her artwork and Degas’s, the influence is prevalent but each artist remains distinct. Where Degas adds some style in his portraits, Cassatt leans into naturalism, though all of Cassatt’s environments absolutely ooze character. She was comfortable in the Parisian Impressionist sphere where her work was respected and she was able to flourish through her art—she took Impressionism and ran with it!
Cassatt’s artworks, such as In the Box, are windows into society as a whole but especially Cassatt’s. Although iconic for her domestic pieces (The Bath (1893) for example), Cassatt shows that despite all the expectations laid out for her, she steps beyond. To paint women in each scene as she does is to see women, to see their lives and show those that choose not to see what is plainly in front of them, what is real. Cassatt’s work, as Lord Chesterfield wrote in his letter in 1747, outline “the inside of the heart and mind of man.”
Jessica Meeks
Art 474- History of American Art
Opinion Paper #1: first writing assignment
March 14, 2021
“Overall, Rocks, wood and water, brooded the spirit of repose, and the silent energy of nature stirred the soul to its innermost depths.” (Thomas Cole)
The paintings I chose to review are by Thomas Cole and his Course of Empire series of five paintings. I thought it was appropriate to review them as a whole piece of work because the individual painting is not as strong as the whole series together.
The titles of each of the paintings in order are “Savage state (top right), Pastoral State (top left), Consummation (middle), Destruction (bottom right), and Desolation(bottom left)” all created in 1836. This series is a beautiful recreation of the fall of civilization and a representation of how life will always find a way to survive. This series represented landscape painting at this time period and while landscape paintings were a new ideal and weren’t as well represented; they still are remarkable that almost 200 years later they still reminisce current themes in today’s society. The plot line of the paintings represent the earth being bright and lush and green “savage state” almost referring to the earth still being wild and untamed and undiscovered. The painting shows the land being green and almost untouched by humanity and its consequences.
The second painting on the top left is called “Pastoral State” and represents the land and nature coexisting peacefully with one another and humanity gives to the land and the land gives back to humanity in a symbiotic relationship. The scene is painted peacefully and the colors in this painting are a little more tame and muted compared to the wild and darker colors of the first painting. The second painting represents a time period where man and nature could coexist peacefully and not destroy one or another.
The third painting in the middle called “Consummation” represents humanity taking over nature and humans representing greed and lustfulness and over consumption of resources. This painting depicts the fancy lifestyles of the people and the lavish materialistic qualities of that time period. The colors are more bright and reminiscent of royalty using reds and purples and blues to signify a sense of status and luxury. Almost no nature is visible in this picture and it appears humanity has taken over the frame. This picture depicts the beginning of the downfall of man due to our greedy and materialistic ways. Earth has become unsustainable due to the lifestyle and overconsumption of man.
The fourth picture called “Destruction” represents humanity at war and the consequences dire for civilizations to survive. The use of deeper reds and violence show a dark tone and theme even from the first painting. The difference between the first and the fourth painting can be the overall themes but the color schemes are significant as well. The first painting had a theme of mystery and awe to it whereas the fourth painting are themes that represent a portion of human kind that is familiar and represents a piece of humanity itself. There is no being in history that has never known war and this painting represents the moment when we have lost. There is still no presence in nature and the scene is taken over by violence and death and killing; but just as with any death there is a balance and this leads to the fifth and final painting in the series.
The fifth painting called “Desolation” shows complete destruction and loss of humanity. This painting is almost reminiscent of the first except the first there was no sign that civilizations of humanity had ever existed whereas the fifth painting shows humanity in ruins and the remains are dying and decaying. Nature starts to reemerge into the scene and the greenery of moss and the water overtakes humanity again in a solemn but peaceful quality. There is still the presence of remains of humans but mostly overtaken by the land again.
This series really inspired me as a landscape photographer as well as a conservation photographer. Even 200 years ago the idea that humanity will always fall to nature and nature will always rebuild itself in ways that we can never fathom almost brought me to tears. One could look at this series as if it was painted today and it would still represent the problems humanity faces and the challenges of the balance of humans and earth coexisting together. This series represents a series of scales that can very easily be tipped if we are not careful. Earth itself will always exist and probably has existed without humanity for millions of years but humanity can only exist while the earth provides and this progression is inevitable in many stations of history and is as represented now as it was 200 years ago. Thomas Cole may be a fortune teller or maybe he is just a representation of the idea that if we cannot learn from ourselves we are bound to repeat our own mistakes.
As the beginning quote states, We as humanity have always been in awe of nature and the wild beauty of earth but we can be ignorant and sometimes we need to be awakened again to the deepest parts of our soul to remember what it is we have lost.
An analysis of James Whistler’s Arrangement in Gray and Black No. 1
Katie Hoffman
Art 474 / Spring 2021
James Whistler’s Arrangement in Grey and Black No. 1, or Portrait of the Artist’s Mother, is the painting most commonly known as Whistler’s Mother. At first glance we see a stiff and seemingly formal older woman, wearing a full length black gown with lace cuffs and collar. The lappets of her lace bonnet rest on solid, confident shoulders effectively guiding the viewer’s eye down the arm to where Mother Whistler’s hands sit folded neatly in her lap, clutching a lace handkerchief. The bent knee of the seated woman stands out as an angular anomaly, dead center on a canvas that is otherwise dominated by rectilinear shapes accentuated by organic forms. The gaze of the woman is toward something outside of the left hand side of the picture plane, perhaps it is a vacant stare. Beneath her we see enough of a chair-form to know that the furniture is there, but the same confident articulation of detail is lacking from the bottom right portion of the painting.
Behind the woman a gray wall is decorated with a low band of dark wood or wainscotting, anchoring the piece approximately one-third of the way up from the bottom of the canvas. The space below this band is reserved for a patterned rug, while above it we see neatly arranged framed and matted prints or etchings. The left-most third of the canvas is dominated by a delicately patterned curtain which reaches almost to the floor and casts a gentle shadow. The overall composition is very orderly, and the given title suggests this scene is not a glimpse into the life of Anna Whistler, but rather a carefully orchestrated juxtaposition of objects, of which the artist’s Mother falls among.
In 1863, Poet Alexander Smith said in Dreamthorp, his first work of prose:
“To sit for one’s portrait is like being present at one’s own creation.” (Pg 258)
This romantic notion does not seem to apply to the Whistler composition, yet it does give one pause because in a sense, this painting was the genesis of something. The first point that might make Smith’s comment irrelevant though in this case, is the fact that the artist himself refutes that this is a portrait at all. In his own book The Gentle Art of Making Enemies (1890), Whistler states:
“Take the picture of my mother, exhibited at the Royal Academy as an “Arrangement in Grey and Black.” Now that is what it is. To me it is interesting as a picture of my mother; but what can or ought the public do to care about the identity of the portrait?” (Pg 128)
According to this view, Whistler would surely doubt that his asking his mother to sit for him would amount to her participating in her own creation. Rather, he insisted even the viewer of the painting had no business caring who was pictured – that identity of the figure was not the point. Whistler referred to this composition as an Arrangement for that reason.
The spirit of Alexander Smith’s quote remains intact however, because this painting undoubtedly connects the art world to this woman, the unwitting subject of a masterpiece. Whether she was ever aware of it, Anna McNeill Whistler transcended the role of being “only” Whistler’s mother, before this work was done – whereas after she became Whistler’s Mother. Anna Whistler became an archetype of motherhood, a connection that would not exist without her presence in the piece. It is questionable if another sitter would have led to a finished work so iconic as this. At this point one could take a healthy detour debating the popularity of Whistler’s Arrangement in Gray and Black No. 2 featuring Thomas Carlyle as the sitter, but it is sufficient to say that the second Arrangement comes nowhere near the first in terms of recognizability.
Although it seems this non-portrait is renowned for reasons defiant of the artist’s intent, James Whistler created a confident composition, which deftly exhibited his mastery of space and tone. He did achieve his original goal of a harmonious arrangement, where he seemingly substituted a model for the any-prop, using them as a filler of space and an absorber of light and little more. It is a coincidence to him that this model was his mother.
I am left wondering what Alexander Smith would have thought of Whistler’s Arrangement in Gray and Black No. 1. Would he view this as a portrait and as a fulfillment of his earlier quote? Or would he be able to take a view more akin to that of the artist himself, and accept that this isn’t a portrait and therefore immune to his framing. Either way, Arrangement…No 1 has achieved a life and meaning beyond what the artist or his mother could have imagined it would.
“One is never satisfied with the portrait of a person one knows.” (Johann Wolfgang van Goethe, Elective Affinities, 1808)
While all the quotes provided were thought provoking and deep, this quote in particular stood out to me as it seems to apply to more than just portraiture, but how humans tend to see themselves in general. This is important to me because I have chosen to provide an analysis of Thomas Cole’s series of paintings, The Course of Empire. Cole’s work immediately stood out to me from other colonial artists as it has a dramatically different tone and style to other American artist that were painting at the time. Cole would paint in a style of fictional realism or even in some cases surrealism and often did series of works that would tie together. To me, this seemed very different from the types of artwork that were being created at the time, usually portraiture or historical landscape scenes of important events. Cole seemed to be thinking in a completely different way than those of his time, tackling important issues such as mortality, or the trends of human behavior.
The first of the five paintings The Savage State, depicts a landscape painting of primitive man, their settlements and traditions. The painting takes place in the early morning, in the foreground you see a hunter pursuing a deer he has shot with an arrow through unkempt and thick brush across a river. In the middle ground you notice a larger group of hunters pursuing two additional deer with the help of dogs, as well as a settlement of tents surrounding a fire. In the background you can see the centerpiece for the series that will be visible in all five paintings, a large mountain crowned with a boulder visible at the peak shrouded by dark clouds that seem to be disappearing with the dawn of day. While the composition of this landscape seems general enough, it gives great detail to the state of evolution the humans in this painting currently reside. The clothes, weapons and housing of the humans of this painting are primitive. The hunters wear one continuous cloth to cover top and bottom and hunt with bows and dogs and bring their meals back to a small group of tee-pees. Around the fire in the center of the tents people appear to be partaking in some sort of ritual, implying a sense of informal religion that exists at the time. The landscape is wild, fairly unaltered by the small group of people currently inhabiting the space.
The second of the series The Arcadian State, is said to be the pinnacle of human evolution. In the foreground of the painting we see a man drawing in the dirt as well as a boy drawing a picture of a solider on a stone bridge. You also see a soldier walking up a path towards the boy and two groups of people on each side of the landscape. In the middle ground you notice a heard of sheep lead by a Shepard, a man on horseback and another man plowing a field with an oxen. Continuing into the middle ground is a small city with wooden houses along a river filled with small ships and atop the hill in the center of the painting, a large stone monolith with a fire in the middle surrounded by people. The painting is set around early morning, and in the background you see the same mountain and boulder depicted in the first painting slightly more left than before, implying this scene is slightly further down the river. The weather is calm and clear with slight clouds and fog that seem to be receding over the mountains in the distance. This painting depicts a slightly more advanced step in human evolution. The man in the foreground is drawing shapes in the sand, showing a rudimentary understanding of geometry and mathematics, the two groups of people are dressed in varying quality of clothes implying a class system, a soldier is showing walking up the path letting the viewer know these people have some form of military. Further into the panting we see agriculture, people harvesting the land and using animals for livestock and in the center a large monolith that seems to be religious in nature, possibly in the middle of a sacrifice to a god. The monolith is reminiscent of the teepees surrounding the fire in the first painting, both seeming to represent some sort of religious aspect of the society.
The third painting in the series, The Consummation of the Empire, shows the tipping point of human evolution. The small village of people has now grown into a massive city, in the foreground you see a large parade leading a king to a grand temple that takes up most of the painting. In the middle ground you notice hundreds of soldiers looking as though they have come back from a victorious battle and are celebrating their achievements. In the background you can see many other grand buildings and statues, implying the wealth and power this civilization has accrued. The same mountain and boulder are seen in the distance and the time is set on a sunny day around noon. At this point the civilization has reached its peak, the painting shows the grandiose wealth of the people but gives subtle hints of what’s to come. If you look in the foreground of the painting you notice two boys playing “war” in a fountain with ships. The boys appear to be fighting, each wearing their own uniform, one in red and one in green. It is thought that these two are meant to represent brothers, and the opposing uniforms are meant to symbolize an impending civil war.
The fourth painting, Destruction, shows the true cost of an empire and what becomes of it. The scene is set in the late afternoon, the sky is dark and stormy filled with smoke and the water shown is wild and roaring. A devastating siege is taking place and chaos is everywhere. Laid in the foreground are hundreds of bodies, dead women and children. Most prominent is a woman who has chosen to run off a ledge and take her own life rather than be captured by the enemy. As you move to the middle ground, a large statue is shown whose head has fallen to its feet, collapsing under the pressure of the siege. In the background buildings burn and people flee, but the mountain and the boulder remain as they always have. Destruction is set as a warning to an empire, to show society the true cost of domination and what it will lead to.
The fifth and final painting, Desolation, completes the cycle of the empire and draws the story to a close. The painting is set in evening and the moon is just starting to rise in the sky. The weather is calm, almost peaceful, as a set of storm clouds on the left side of the painting seem to be retreating in the distance. Nature has reclaimed the once massive city and animals and wildlife return to what was originally theirs. Most of the buildings have collapsed, but what is left is covered in moss and habitats for the animals in the area. One things remains constant, the mountain and boulder sit untouched, over the many years that the empire rose and fell they both remained in perfect harmony.
The five paintings in The Course of Empire series depict the rise and fall of a civilization, from the dawn of savages, to the consumption of an empire, and the return to nature. This series was created from 1833 – 1836, which seems very appropriate for the context of the United States during the time in which it was painted. America was a fairly new civilization slowly making its climb through the cycle, and I believe this series was the perfect warning from Cole to be aware and cautious of the fate that could plague this new empire. “One is never satisfied with the portrait of a person one knows.” Explaining the cycle described in this series to a government in the middle of it must have been difficult in Cole’s time, as it is very difficult of convincing someone of how they may act, especially if it is true. Cole’s thought process, creativity and execution of his vision is inspiring to me, and stood out in a league of its own amongst other colonial painters. His awareness of his surroundings and the situations he was living through are impressive, and all this talent is translated perfectly onto canvas.
Arron Adams
Art 474-1001
Portrait of Mrs. Nathaniel Ellery by John Singleton Copley
Mary and Elizabeth Royall by John Singleton Copley
“Doubtless portraiture is tantalizing art – no pleasing your sitters, hey. All wanting to be Venuses and Adonises, hey.” – Gorge III
“Doubtless portraiture is tantalizing art – no pleasing your sitters, hey. All wanting to be Venuses and Adonises, hey.” I think it is interesting that the word “tantalizing” was chosen here. Typically – although not always – the word “tantalizing” is used to refer to something that is tempting, but, ultimately, out of reach or unattainable. It seems to me that the implication here is that portraiture is something an artist can only really strive toward, but never quite properly achieve, never actually reach.
However, before looking further into why and how portraiture might be considered tantalizing, I want to examine the main subject of this quote: portraiture. Portraiture, in the context of this quote, is the branch of painting that is focused on creating paintings of the likenesses of individual people, i.e. creating a portrait. Now, a portrait can really be a painting of essentially any amount of a person: from a full body depiction of the entire person, to a close up shot of just the person’s face. However, I would argue – and I suspect that most would agree with me here – that the essential part, the most important aspect, of any portrait, is specifically the face of the subject of the portrait. Of all the features of the human form, the face is the most recognizable aspect of an individual person, and, as such, it is the most crucial part to depict correctly and accurately to the person whose portrait is being painted.
This would seem to be relatively straightforward, particularly when the subject is sitting (or standing, or lying, or what have you) in front of the painter waiting to have, and presumably wishing to have, their likeness painted. However, as anyone who has ever attempted to render an accurate likeness of a person, in any media, can attest: it is really not all that simple. The human form in general is fairly complicated, but, with the face in particular, all it really takes is a relatively small flaw in the rendering to completely throw off the entire likeness. There is even a term used to refer to when a likeness is almost, but not quite, correct: uncanny valley. But just the fact that there is a term for when the likeness of a human face is off would suggest that there are times when a likeness is not off, and, indeed, there are painters who have been able to capture accurate and recognizable likenesses of individual people. Copley, for example, was known to paint portraits of people that were (or are, I suppose one would say, as the paintings are still around) individualized and animated. There have been other painters as well who have managed this feat, thus, while it is certainly not easy, it is not quite entirely out of reach, as the term tantalizing might suggest.
The next part of the quote, however, seems to explain a different reason – one that is not about the mechanics, or technical aspect – for why portraiture might be considered tantalizing, but unreachable: “no pleasing your sitters, hey. All wanting to be Venuses and Adonises, hey.” This part of the quote immediately reminds me of the people on social media, among other places, asking other people – or even, in some cases, commissioning professional artists – to Photoshop, or otherwise manipulate, photos of their faces to make them look “more attractive:” remove lines, creases, blemishes, scars, freckles, and other facial “imperfections.” I think that it is this constant pursuit of perceived “perfection” that George III was referring to when he called portraiture tantalizing, and it seems clear that the idea is less about whether or not it is possible to accurately create a portrait of an individual person, but rather that it is impossible – or at least extremely difficult – to create a portrait that satisfies the person being painted: “no pleasing your sitters, hey.”
Now, with this in mind, it is easy to imagine that, when having their portrait painted, many people are not going to be happy if their portrait is an accurate likeness, and will request that alterations be made in the same way that people today want their photos manipulated. I can even imagine that there are some who would be actively offended at not being painted in a way that they deem to be perfect, a way that does not match up with their own perceptions of what they look like, and I feel like in some cases that offense could potentially actually harm the artist creating the painting. Consider, for a moment, who this quote is coming from: King George III of England. What sort of people would the King of England associate with, and what sort of people was he referring to in this quote? I think it is most likely that he primarily was associating with the English nobility, but really anyone who was relatively wealthy and/or influential could be the sort of person he was referring to, and I feel like this is potentially significant.
Think for a moment about an artist creating a portrait for someone who is fairly wealthy or influential, and the resulting painting ends up offending the patron in some way – however unreasonable the offense may be. Now, there could be any number of different outcomes to something like this happening, but consider what might happen if said influential patron decided to use their influence to cause harm to the artist’s reputation in some way. This quote is from the King of England, what might happen if he said he didn’t like the painting? Even if he was not necessarily trying to harm the artist’s reputation, if he just did not like some small part of the painting, it could easily cause the artist to lose many potential patrons. On the other hand, the praise of an influential person could – and I believe has in some cases throughout history – make a artists entire career. So, in this sense, it is easy to see why George III might call portraiture tantalizing; it could be that one single portrait might make or break an artist, and thus would be very tempting, but also potentially out of reach – at least for some.
One last thing I want to touch on, however, is this idea that there is no pleasing your sitters: “All wanting to be Venuses and Adonises, hey.” While I am certain that George III had a point – probably because he had met such people – and I think it still holds true today in many cases, I do not think it’s fair to assume this mentality of everyone. Going back to Copley, and his ability to paint individualized faces – faces with that spark of life in them – consider his Portrait of Mrs. Nathaniel Ellery. This is a painting which clearly shows the lines, creases, and subtle “imperfections” that shows it to be the face of an actual person. Or his portrait of Mary and Elizabeth Royall, which are not idealized, not painted from templates, not “Venuses.” These paintings are of real people, who were not so pretentious that they needed to be painted as anything other than who they actually were. So I feel that, although George III did have a point – and he likely spoke from experience – it is not entirely fair to say that everyone wants “to be Venuses and Adonises,” there are those who are content with being who they are, and there are those artists who are capable of painting portraits that show accurate likenesses of who they are.
My opinion will be made on John Singleton Copley’s Boy with a Squirrel (Henry Pelham) 1765. It is a 30 3/8’’ x 25 1/8’’ oil painting on canvas. This painting shows Henry Pelham, Copley’s half-brother. The subject is shown in a side profile, a trait that is uncommon for portraiture. Shown in the background is a red drape, framing the contrasting pale countenance of the sitter. He wears a dark frock coat, with a pink collar. Underneath the coat is a yellow vest and white vest. Directing the gaze downward, we follow his right arm, which leads to his hand. In his hand he holds a gold chain, which continues to lead the gaze towards a flying squirrel, a pet squirrel. John Singleton Copley’s Boy with a Squirrel displayed his maturity as a self-taught artist. Having been born in Boston, he grew up around a home filled with paintings and engravings, all created by his step-father Pelham, His situation in Boston made him exclusively a portrait artist, as it was the only kind of painting up in the market at the time. Copley was self-taught in that he based his compositions on the engravings he used to see at home. He was soon the most sought out portrait artist in Boston. But Copley wanted to be more than just a portrait artist.
“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891) John Singleton Copley painted Boy with a Squirrel to display his skills as a self-taught artist. His fame at the time was gained because of his skills as a talented portrait artist, having no formal artistic training. However, Copley wanted more than local success. Knowing there is more than just painting portraits his whole career, he intended to send this painting to an exhibition in London. He wanted to demonstrate everything he had to offer, the skills he developed by simply observing other artists. Boy with a Squirrel is an early masterpiece of Copley’s. He shows a masterful usage of composition using color. He also has an impeccable ability to create a variety of texture.
Copley painted his subject in profile, a vibrant red curtain framing the subject’s face. He depicts the young boy’s skin as soft and light, contrasting well with the drapes behind him. The boy wears a dark frock coat, with a detail pink satin collar. A yellow vest is seen underneath, obscuring a white shirt, the buttonholes of the vest being highly detailed. White ruffled cuffs are painted with great care, as to show the play of light on the subject. Following the direction of his right hand, his hand is brightly illuminated against a dark contrasting background, again, showing his ability to render soft textured skin. His hand itself is delicately holding a gold chain, carefully painted to show the glimmer and shape of each individual oval of the chain. The chain runs along the subject’s hand, flowing down and skews towards the right of the composition. At the end of this trail, a pet squirrel. Copley displayed great talent at painting this small creature, emphasizing its large dark eyes, rendering the soft brown fur successfully and delicately painting the long grey whiskers. Another object that Copley has demonstrated his great artistic ability in is the mahogany table in front directly in front of the sitter. The table is rendered beautifully and polished very thoroughly. Its shows the Copley’s ability to paint a physical object’s reflection. We can see the reflections of the glass of water and the squirrel, polished into the richly brown mahogany table. We can also see the white reflecting off from his ruffled cuffs and a subtle dark reflection from his coat. All these elements in Boy with a Squirrel, the sitter, the squirrel, the table, they demonstrate that this painting was made to exhibit the self-taught artistic abilities John Singleton Copley had achieved.
Boy with a Squirrel by John Singleton Copley was a masterpiece made during his budding success. He created this piece with the intent to ship it to a London exhibition, it was not destined to be a simple commission for a local market. He knew he had more to offer than just painting portraits. Knowing of the art academies overseas, he decided to display his talents as a self-taught artist to reach other professional artists. And to his credit, it did receive praise. A leading English artist, Sir Joshua Reynolds, called the painting “a very wonderfull Performance.” He did however also mention that if Copley wanted to be more accomplished, he needed to receive proper artistic training. Oscar Wilde’s comment, “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” (The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891) is a great example of what Boy with a Squirrel as to why Copley painted this portrait. He wanted to break out from a single category of art, and to expand his knowledge on other artistic techniques. He demonstrated everything he taught himself into this single portrait, veering slightly away from a conventional portrait and adding in other elements to show his determination of breaking away from a single-minded community. John Singleton Copley was indeed a great American artist, and his painting Boy with a Squirrel showed how his great effort to branch out was what kept him to continue painting to the highest degree.
Jack Foss
Art 474
Robert Tracy
First Writing Assignment
When painting a portrait, your subject provides so much more to capture than just its pure visual elements. Living subjects have personality and character that viewers often look for in portraits. This aspect of portraiture is sharply expressed in a statement from a letter written by an 18th century English Nobleman named Lord Chesterfield. He wrote, “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” Not unlike Chesterfield, many wealthy merchant patrons in colonial America sought after portraiture that adequately captured the enigmatic liveliness of its subject. The demand for this type of art was supplied in a uniquely patriotic way by the 18th Century colonial American artist, John Singleton Copley.
Copley had a very fresh and entirely new approach to painting. His early training in art consisted of him reproducing encyclopedic drawings from books that were available to him. He would not receive a formal education in art until late in his career. The lack of popular outside influence in Copley’s work was what made it unique and entirely American. Copley’s artistic approach, untainted from the already established European methodology, left him basing his work off the subject before him and nothing else. This artistic approach, based simply on acute awareness of the subject enabled Copley to develop a sixth-sense for the subject’s personality and character.
Personality can be very difficult to capture and depict through painting. Painters oftentimes harbor artistic biases that deter an accurate depiction of the subject. Copley’s pure approach freed his work from saturated tropes like idealization that plagued shallow portraiture. Copley painted his subjects how they were, emphasizing what made his subject distinct without caricaturing. Despite his acute focus on the physical form and its many details, it was not a goal of Copley’s to capture that alone. Copley observed these physical details and used them as a vehicle to depict his subject not as a figure, but as an individual with their own sentience. This pure depiction was highly sought after by the merchant class art patrons of Copley’s time. Just like Lord Chesterfield, these merchants were in the market for work that accurately depicted the inside of hearts and minds. Copley found great success with this clientele who grew weary of flat, lifeless, and pretentiously idealized European portraiture.
Copley’s Portrait of Mrs. James Russell embodies his successfulness in capturing the inside of the subject’s heart and mind. I know very little about this painting’s subject, Katherine Graves, outside of her apparent affiliation with the merchant class. Although historical context is relatively lacking, the painting still suggests much about her as a person. The style that Copley uses depicts Katherine very organically yet dignified. Traces of her genuine personality are evident all throughout the portrait, leaving little room for shallowness. The texture of her skins and her bodily proportions respectfully indicate her age. That, alongside her facial expression, reflects the familiar demeanor of many similar women. Although these traits that she shares with many other women her age are depicted, Copley’s keen eye for nuance still sets this portrait of Katherine apart from the other women that Copley has painted. This individuality is evident in all of the seemingly minor details. I look at her hands and notice a lot. They seem loose, almost mid movement, each of her fingers is posed differently but not without natural correspondence. The particular positioning of her hands and all of what they consist conveys a sense of liveliness in the subject. This liveliness is particular to Katherine. The subject is lively in a manner that likely parallels the real Katherine’s liveliness.
Hands aside, there are details in many other parts of this portrait that reflect the inside of Mrs. James Russell’s personality. Going back to her facial expression, it is a modernly pleased hint of a smirk that women her age are no strangers to making. Instead of using her head as a template to convey the general essence of that expression, he captures her unique take on that expression. Copley is observant of the every subtle departure made by Katherine from the generalized smirk, leaving her character distinctions, and by proxy, her personality on clear display.
Although a major focus of Copley’s was accurate and honest depiction of his subjects, this painting still contains light deviation. Instead of deviating for the sake of idealization, Copley’s subtle changes drew focus to who the subject was beyond their mere physical form. These changes were not intrusive or distracting from the subject’s true essence. In Portrait of Mrs. James Russell copley applied lighting changes. There is little evidence of Katherine’s non pertinent surroundings. It seems to be redacted via low lighting. In contrast, Katherine is under an especially bright light. Tenebrism was used to alter their painting in a way that added a tasteful amount of drama and literally shed light onto the subject, emphasizing the nuances that represent how Katherine carries herself as a dignified woman.
John Singleton Copley’s colonial work in portraiture was exemplary in depicting the mysterious enigma personality that many patrons like Lord Chesterfield sought. His purely original style that was uninhibited by outside artistic motifs was able to capture people for how they are and how they are, not just what they are.
Tabiya Conyers
Robert Tracy
Art 474.1001
25 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
Portrait painting is a looking glass into something more than a painting of a human. When portraits are made, they are supposed to be copies of what is seen in front of the artist. So how does one paint the life of a human surely just by looking at a mold of a body? In an excellent quote, it is stated that, “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (English nobleman Lord Chesterfield, in a letter dated 1747). This quote is explaining that portraits are beyond just a person on a canvas; instead, there are important factors to consider when looking close at paintings. In fact, the portraits can tell the viewer more about what the person, or even artist, is trying to express about themselves.
In the “Self Portrait of Thomas Smith”, created in 1691, where Smith is portrayed with a skull and has a sad smile on his face. There is a window behind him with scenery of things that were happening at the time the portrait was made. The painting is pretty dark in color, and it is in the baroque style. Many features of the painting played with the third dimension and was more of a realistic approach to portrait painting. Smith’s self-portrait was created in lieu of his illness and it was a prediction of his death that would soon come later. So many aspects of the painting were little glimpses into Smith’s life and what he was dealing with.
In the background there is a window present; the window could have simply been something vague or made up, but the events out his window were what would have been happening during the time period he was in. The window really makes the viewer wonder what importance the scenery meant to the artists. Maybe the image behind Smith was the happy or significant memories he was leaving behind him. Behind him the viewer can see boats, which is something to watch out for considering Smith was a mariner/sea captain. Textures are present in the clouds and the contrast in colors lead the viewer’s eyes to the window in the portrait. This is an example of Chesterfield’s quote. The window would be an example of the heart of the man. Since Smith pursued painting later in life, he obviously has had other loves present before creating the painting. One of those so happened to be boats.
As for the ‘head’ of the piece, there is a skull present in Smith’s portrait. Smith had known he was dying so his impending death was an influence in Smith’s life. The skull represented the pain/reality of Smith’s condition. Smith himself presented a frown on his face in the painting. Perhaps, the frown was to look more regal, but the dark tone of the piece makes the frown appear more gloomy. The saying that ‘eyes are the window to the soul,’ is true in this piece as well because Smith’s eyes express an emotional impact that is morose.
On the other hand, one may ask if Chesterfield’s quote applies to all portrait painting, including ones that are not self made. In the instance of Limner’s, “Elizabeth Freake and Baby Mary”, created in 1671-4, the picture seems to appear formal with not a lot of personality at first glance, but a lot can be said about this portrait. The portrait is of a mother and her baby and is a flatter portrait than Smith’s piece. The family of two are well-dressed and are represented as wealthy based on their attire. This includes, nice lace, expensive-looking material, ribbons, and pearls. The style is considered Elizabethan/Jacobean The background is dark with a lighter foreground, which helps highlight the main subjects. Even though the painting appears to be a straight-forward portrait there are many things to question in the piece.
The main element that sticks out is the faces of the baby and Elizabeth Freake. Neither the mother or child have a smile on their face. That can be that neither of them were happy at that point in time or perhaps the artist made a creative choice to not make them smile. Another thing t6hat stuck out was the orientation of the way the mom was holding her child. The Freake was not coddling or holding the child like a priceless person, instead she has a hand on the baby’s shoulder like a pal or friend would and then the other is on the child’s stomach. In all honesty, the baby looks as if it is a doll more than a baby, which makes more of a disconnect between the mother and child. The image doesn’t just share an image of a mother and child, but actually shares their relationship or tells a story. Around that time, most wealthier families would not be that close to their children, so the negativity that is felt when looking at the portrait may be valid. Freake has a little glimpse of a smirk on her face in the portrait which makes it seem like she is happy with her status, so her closeness to her child may be spacious, but her image in society means more to her than anything else. No one can be sure what the artist, Limner, or the family were trying to display, but there are feelings that a portrait can invoke that express a story that can be interpreted from person to person. So Chesterfield’s quote, “By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man,” is valid in many cases including ones that seem opposing what the quote is about.
Overall, any type of painting or art can make a viewer want to investigate more about the subject, but portrait painting in particular is interesting because it is a puzzle into who is being painted. Not every portrait may get a backstory to it, so it is up to the artist to express who the person being painted is on the inside by expressing it on the outside of their form. Not everything is a face value explanation and that is one of the most important aspects about art in general.
Andrew Yau
Robert Tracy
ART 474-1001 & ART 472-1001
03/25/2021
First Opinion Paper
“By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (English nobleman Lord Chesterfield, in a letter dated 1747)
The balancing act of adhering to an employers guidelines while still allowing
one’s artistic ability and vision to show is one that has been prevalent from hundreds of years in the past to the modern day. Artists by nature are always trying to improve their craft and push their limits in order to fully capture their constantly running imaginations and aspirations and portray them in a physical medium. The skill one builds up from that seemingly endless pursuit is what attracts others to them, sometimes fellow artists and other times regular people with an appreciation for their craft. If their skill is sought out enough then they will be hired to do work, and during the time of the 1700-1800s that primarily took the form of portraiture.
John Singleton Copley’s Portrait of Joseph Sherburne (1767-1770) is one of the many portraits that Copley did during his life, and best showcases the status quo and expectation of what one could expect from a simple portrait piece. It’s fairly simple in it’s posing and composition, but there’s just enough intrigue to keep one’s eye on the painting. The figure lounges with his body leaning on the table, his other arm resting on the top of a chair, he exudes a sense of normalcy and day-to-day that is both familiar to the common viewer and foreign. The pose is one that any person can do, but the person doing it is not a common man. The normalcy and comfort he enjoys is due to his riches and status; signified by the fancy clothes he wears, the ornately designed cloth placed onto his table and wall, and the chair he’s sitting in is also fairly fancy but not too gaudy in its design. Lastly there is the facial expression that has the hints of pride, authority, and smugness to it. These hints of personality are able to make the viewer see the man as a person who owns the wealth they see, rather than a man with wealth by his side. These Copley portraits are a good mix of adhering to commissioner guidelines of painting these people in the best light possible with their achievements and property while also adding slight hints to personality and emotion.
Contrast this to the portrait of Walt Whitman (1887-1888) by Thomas Eakins. Seen clearly is a man in the last stage of his life, a face clearly conveying the years he has lived through, his clothes are respectable but not quite fashionable, the brushwork is rough, the background is plain and drab, and the colors are dreary and weathered. Not only is the subject of this portrait old and worn but the space in which he resides is very similar to the man himself in color palette and rendering. As a result of this, the edges of his right arm and shadowed left side of his body nearly blend into the background making it seem as if the man is slowly being assimilated by it. The merging of the man and background was likely a conscious choice by Eakins to symbolize the man’s feelings of complacency and idleness as he’s become too old to move and affect what surrounds him; becoming part of the background as the younger generations begin to take center stage in the world. Additionally, the clothes he wears carries a similar theme as they are a fairly respectable looking set but have been worn in and cannot his old age and subsequent fragility. Lastly there are the eyes; dark, hard, almost cold, but dense with the weight of the things he’s seen and lived. They are undoubtedly the strongest part of this man, but also the saddest because within his gaze of life experience is the knowledge that his life will soon come to an end. This portrait is a polar opposite to Copley’s, as they portray weakness, frailty, and the lack of material wealth.
Copley’s portrait is able to draw out hints of personality from his subject despite having to surround him with material wealth. In those hints of personality he was able to show a bit of the mind of the subject, prideful of his accomplishments and wanting to show it to those around him. On the other hand Eakin’s drew out both the heart and mind of his subject by painting someone “bare”. The only thing being showcased in this portrait is the man himself, everything else, such as his clothes and the background, is acting as complementary elements to him rather than the opposite. Both of these works show that portraits are not just an exact painting of what the artist sees at a surface level, but are representations of what the artist is able to see on a much deeper level as they make connections among the mundane of people’s everyday lives while also bringing them to life.
Mikaela Nettlow
ART 474 – 1001
Dr. Robert Tracy
24 March 2021
First Assignment
Portraits can tell you so much about a person. Depending on how the artist depicts the subject, effective portraiture conveys not only the likeness of the individual but also the personality and heart of said individual. However, when you paint an effective portrait, unlike what people may think, actual physical resemblance is not the top priority for a lot of painters, but capturing the subject’s personality is.
“By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (Chesterfield 1747).This quote by an English nobleman by the name of Lord Chesterfield originating from a letter describes the feeling that portraiture needs to give off in order to be considered a work of art. When people think of portraits, they mainly think about the simple depiction of a person but it is so much more than that. When one paints a portrait, yes, physical resemblance is key but you also need to figure out their personality, their quirks, and their soul and make that show through your brush strokes. Portraits are more than just outlines and whether or not you got the subject’s resemblance. Like Chesterfield said, it is all about “the heart and mind of man.” And Thomas Eakins’ The Cello Player is one of the perfect examples of that.
The Cello Player has remained one of Eakins’ most recognizable and best works and it is for good reason. Like the title of the painting describes, it is simply a man dressed in black playing a cello. But what makes this painting different from the others is that you can almost feel that person’s presence through that painting. The focused but somber look on his face defined by brush strokes, the steadiness of his hand on the bow, and how he holds his cello so gently and with care can give me the impression of who this cello player is and what their personality is like just by taking a glance at the painting. Rather than just trying to cast physical resemblance, Eakins decided to paint his subject on what he is most passionate about-playing the cello. It showcased the subject’s heart and mind so much that even if the painter might have not gotten the player’s physical features all correct, it showcased him enough that people that may know of him recognize him. And that is effective portraiture at its finest.
As mentioned above, physical resemblance of the subject is not the only top priority that artists are concerned with when they are painting a portrait. It is a very important aspect that should not be overlooked and the client’s satisfaction is key. However, you can paint someone as accurate as you can and recognize every single pore of that individual, but the client may not believe the painting looks like them because all the personality and soul of that individual would disappear if you focus solely on the physical features. The Cello Player exemplifies that capturing that physical resemblance is not the only important feature to showcase the individual as best as the painter can as it shows off the subject’s personality and what they do. As a result of that, it places some recognition on the subject to not only the subject themselves but also the people around them. Even absolute strangers might recognize them because their resemblance shows through the painting.
Thomas Eakins’ The Cello Player is one of the perfect examples that explain Chesterfield’s quote. Chesterfield expressed the impression that portraiture must elicit in order to be considered a work of art. Portraits are more than just outlines and whether or not you were able to catch the subject’s likeness. It’s all about “man’s heart and mind,” as Chesterfield put it. And The Cello Player showcases on what he is talking about perfectly.
No man ever painted history as if he could obtain employment in portraits.”
(Gilbert Stuart, quoted in Richardson, Gilbert Stuart)
A fitting quote for the art profession if there ever was one. It looks simple or even nonsensical, but the longer you look at it the more complex it gets; the more the gears in your head start to turn.
What could it mean? After rereading it for about ten minutes, I still do not know if I have the answer, or if there is even a “the” answer. What I got from it was that nobody paints a scene, of say, nature thinking it will be revered in the same way a portrait is, especially when it comes to a historical figure. While portraiture could easily find some footing in the market a nature scene must have been exceptionally more difficult. As such, more effort is put forth in order to make something that can be viewed as mundane, as nature often is, into something fantastical.
The first piece that came to mind while writing the above paragraphs was Thomas Cole’s The Course of Empire: Desolation (1836). Solemn does not even begin to describe this painting. Thomas Cole is very successful in capturing the emotion of nature; that feeling one gets when looking out on the horizon. Emotion is a factor that takes painstaking skill to convey, especially in work with no faces or figures. Obviously, the subject matter and time period play a large role in this.
The ruins of a long-ago civilization being depicted during a period of American expansion is sort of a poetic concept. As the American “settlers” expanded into nature, nature consumes the pristine white pillars and remarkable aqueducts of Rome. As they are consumed, the neglected structures are shown to be cracked and breaking.
The detail work on this piece is commendable. The faraway towers in the distance, especially. The fine attention to make them present yet foggy due to their distance from the foreground must have been painstaking. The lighting of the piece is a pale-yellow, a daybreak scene, perhaps. The moon is a tiny dot center frame and long, stringy clouds creep in from the left and can be seen starting to hide the moon. Not even the cosmos are safe from the changing times.
The second piece I found to also fit my interpretation was another one of Cole’s works, The Oxbow (1836). As with Desolation Cole succeeds in conveying the majesty of nature through lighting. The roaring storm creeps in from the left and contrasts the light shining down on the titular oxbow. Unlike Desolation, this scene does not feature as much human made structures, with the only man-made object clearly visible in the entire composition being a parasol at the edge of the cliff.
As with his other works, Cole does not skimp on the details. As the viewer looks closer, one can see that the grass is not just one, uniform color. There are yellow and dull greens, and they are divided geometrically, suggesting that they are farmlands of sorts.
It’s very interesting to see how Cole divides his canvases, not only in lighting, but in subject matter. The foreground is full of these lush blue green trees, there are stumps that have not been cleared away. It is in clear opposition to the bright farmlands below, and the fact that they are dimly lit by the storm speaks to that. Perhaps the 19th century artist was going for a bit of subtle symbolism. Maybe he was warning that in the end, nature will consume and correct what mankind has created. After all, he depicted an example of this before.
Cole is literally painting American history and yet, it is not brought up when discussing the great works. After all, what is an oxbow when compared to a portrait of the founding fathers? What is looking into the past when “settlers” were looking towards the future? To many, insignificant. Though artists throughout history have put their life’s work into being “insignificant.”
Jasmine Small
ART 474-1001
March 25, 2021
Opinion/ Position Paper
When I was in fourth grade, I remember my first portrait. With a picture of myself on the table beside me and the basic outline the teacher had displayed on the board; I created my first self-portrait. Unfortunately, by the time I was done I could not recognize the figure before me. I had made my eyes completely even and aligned them to the figure on the board. My lips were even and straight. My hair, like the photograph, was displayed in a tight ponytail making it relatively nonexistent on the page. I had followed everything I was told to do, but this figure was not me. My eyes were never even, and my lips were missing their familiar curl. I had captured my image but did not make a successful portrait. As Lord Chesterfeild stated in a letter, “By portraits, I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure, but the inside of the heart and mind of man.” (1747) I had captured a human image, but not my personality and therefore, not my portrait. To have a successful portrait, one must understand their subject or what makes a person a person and then what the goal of their portrait is.
When creating a portrait, I find it important to consider who or what your subject is. True that portraits are usually focused on a person, but what makes that person a person? With the speedy development of AI, I find this question to be increasingly important though hard to give a definitive answer too. It is my belief that what separates a person from a hollow humanoid robot is sentients and personality. My understanding of sentients was inspired by 17th century French Rationalist René Descartes who stated, “Cogito, ergo sum,” or “I think, therefore I am.” I always took this quote to be a declaration of existence and of self-recognition/affirmation. A sense of being is necessary to be sentient, and then a personality is then added to become a full person. Personality creates individuality that then can turn an ambiguous herd of humans into individual people.
With a better understanding of the subject, or what makes a person a person, it is then important to consider the purpose of a portrait. I believe that there are only two reasons as to why a portrait would be created. The first would be to show an individual as they were in life at the time. This focuses heavily on realism. The second would be to show an individual as they should be. These I connect to religious or royal paintings that tend to exaggerate the figure’s attributes in favor of public opinion. I think this reason also aligns with many modern-day character artists. Their job is to exaggerate features of a person to capture a personality that the public around the subject could recognize easily. Between these two I do believe there can be a middle ground, and that is where I think artists like Thomas Eakins thrive. His 1875 painting, The Gross Clinic, portrays Dr. Samuel D. Gross and feels almost exaggerated with the way Dr. Gross is bathed in light in such an idyllic manner, but it is also incredibly realistic with the blood on his hand as he holds the knife. This is why I think Eakins’s paintings ride the line between staying true to both the historical and social interpretation of a person’s identity.
What also makes Eakins’s portraits so successful is the sense of personality that he puts forth into them. When looking at the Portrait of Mary Adeline Williams that Eakins’s painted in 1899, it is clear that his goal for this piece was to capture, not just the image of this woman, but her life through the painting. Her forehead wrinkles and stray hairs on the back of her neck all give off her personality. Her form is not rigid like a corpse, but instead relaxed with a natural curve of her neck and tilt of her head. Her expression is content, with her gaze not at the viewer, but at another object nearby. This indirect eye contact builds the realism for me as having a portrait look directly at the viewer can sometimes be interpreted as breaking the fourth wall. While a portrait with the subject looking elsewhere feels as if the image was captured at a raw moment in their life. Quite possibly, this is Eakins’s attempt to capture the expression that is made when it is assumed when no one is looking. This effect gives off the individual’s personality and soul. Techniques like these are what make Eakins’s portraits so successful.
It is not easy to create a successful portrait. Technicalities such as line and shading will only get an artist so far. That is why, as Lord Chesterfeild stated, it is important to express the soul of the subject in the portrait. Such knowledge and understanding of what makes a person a person and how to properly present their identity from a historical or social perspective are what make artists like Thomas Eakins so successful. His way of displaying the personality of his subjects through fine yet recognizable details are what make his works stand on their own against the top portrait painters of today.
First Opinion Paper
Lauren Sato
“By portraits I do not mean the outlines and the coloring of the human figure but the inside of the heart and mind of man” English nobleman Lord Chesterfield in a letter dated 1747. Sometimes as artists we tend to focus on the form and technique of a painting instead of the mind of the person who is creating and manipulating the medium. I myself often find myself being critical of my form instead of painting through my heart and mind. When it comes to painting, yes technique is quite a staple. But sometimes the soul of the artist is lost when critiquing or even just admiring and viewing their work and technique becomes the main topic and discussion.
“The White Girl” by James Abbott McNeill Whistler is a full body portrait of his mistress at the time, Johanna Heffernan. oil on canvas 83 x 42 inches. She is pictured on a wolf skin rug and holding a white lily in her left hand. Influenced by the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood style of painting, this is considered an Avant Garde piece. Heffernan is shown shrouded in a white dress in front of a white backdrop and stands on a bestial rug. Supported by its formalist technique and subtle orchestrated tonal variations, there is no doubt Whistler had his form perfected. But isn’t there more to a painting than technique? In my opinion, this is what Lord Chesterfield meant when he said that there is another part to a perfectly painted figure on a canvas. Whistler portrays Heffernan with a view of innocence by showcasing her large “doe eyed”, almost blank stare. Some viewers say her facial expression comes off as no personality but I think her dreamy, heroine-esque look about her is an allusion to Whistler’s emotions towards her. She was a dream, something unattainable for a man who was already betrothed to another woman. The lily in her left hand may symbolize virginity and the rejection of a guided path which also is a nod to Whistler’s strong and wistful thoughts of her. The lily can also symbolize carnality which is a parallel to the bestial rug she is standing on and creates a juxtaposition between the virginity of all white and the sensualness of the rug. Another allusion to Whistler’s erotic undercurrents for his muse and mistress.
Mary Cassat was another American artist whose form was impeccable and was known for being a bit radical in her ways in which she decided she had no specific art identity, she was confidently independent. Her iconic painting “The Bath” portrays a mother daughter relationship during bathtime. Cassat creates a wonderful tension of forms between one another and draws the viewer into the perspective of a real life angle. The mother and daughter are so close to one another that you really feel the intimacy and trust between the two. The viewer really feels the maternal closeness to the child in the painting. Behind the form and technique of this painting, I believe that Cassat was able to really portray the closeness of a mother and daughter relationship because of her own experience with her own daughter. She painted with her heart and soul and it shows through the way the body language and facial expressions are between one another. A mother is shown sitting down with her daughter on her lap over a tub of water. The mother is washing the child’s foot while the child braces herself with her hand on her mother’s thigh. Their facial expressions are calm and peaceful as if the mother is telling her daughter a story or reassuring words of kindness. Doing a deeper dive on this iconic piece, the form of the bodies are really highlighted from one article to another. In order to display such maternal closeness, it had to have come from the heart. Cassat’s choice to focus on mother child themes was definitely a choice that came from the heart.
Lord Chesterfield was right in the way that art is not only forms, figures and technique. It is the heart and soul behind it which makes it art. To be able to create something that enables the viewer to feel anything, any sort of emotion is only created from within the artist’s emotion and mindset. One of my favorite sayings is that if it makes you feel, then it is considered art. I think we often times forget that technique is not everything and is it not a qualification to be considered art. Heart and mind are the very livelihoods of some of the best and most famous artists in history and that is why that quote spoke out to me the most.
Annie Lin
Art 474/472 Combined First Opinion Paper
James McNeill Whistler is one of the important figures who made a significant impact in the development of American art. Born in 1834, Whistle created countless work in his 69 years of life. While learning his art, Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl is one work that attracts me the most. Oscar Wilde once mentioned in his novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, that “every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” The White Girl is one work that gives me such feeling. Although it depicts a beautiful woman, the enigmatic energy comes from the artist.
To begin with, The White Girl was painted during the winter of 1861 to 1862, when he was 27-years old. Joanna Heffernan, Whistler’s mistress, was the muse of this painting. Whistler painted this specifically for the 1862 Royal Academy of Arts exhibition in London. The work was meant for showing his talent to the world. Yet, the painting was rejected. Whistler then tried to submit it for 1863 Pairs Salon, and it got rejected too. The criticism of this painting includes saying it is “incomplete” and “bizarre”. To me, I share the same thought with Whistler, that is, “She was still beautiful.”
When first look at this painting, my eyes were immediately drawn by this young, red hair lady. Although her face does not occupy the majority space, the silhouette of her dress and figure captures the essence of traditional beauty. It reminds me of a Greek goddess statue, who stood gracefully with her drapes on the floor. Further, the white dress stands out instead of blends in with the white curtain background. Although the sleeves of the dress have a similar value with the curtain, the emphasis on the folds makes them standout. Further, by using similar value in the fore and back, Whistler suggests how the environment also gives meaning to the figure. Where she is at represents the who she is.
Continuing with the idea of how environment relate to the lady, the fact that she is stepping on the skin of a wolf is interesting. While the woman is fragile and innocent, the wolf skin looks anguish and aggressive. There is a dramatic contrast between the wild and docile. Further, the decorative carpet suggests the comfortable environment that she is in. She is well protected and has a high status.
As I move my eyes around the place she is in, I become curious about how she would look like. When looking closer, her eyes attracted me the most. She gazes into a place that I will not be able to know, her irises are out of focus. The eyes are dazed, as if she is under a spell. Her rosy complexion makes her stand out in the white values, along with the vibrant color in her hair. I notice how the brush strokes are fuzzy in some areas of her face, and how some areas of muscles are not identified clearly. For instance, the eye lids and nose are defined only by some shades of grayish brown. Although there is minimal definition in depicting the face, yet they successfully capture the flesh tone and appearance that incites people’s imagination. In addition, her hand holding the remining piece of the falling flower makes great comparison with her face. The falling of white lily represents the loss of innocent, and connecting it with her dreamy appearance, they together suggest the imagination of an indulging night. The symbolism invites the viewer to think about the potential meanings.
I start to pay attention with Whistler’s strokes, and I am soon captured by how unique they are. Whistler used smooth strokes when comes to the folds of the dress, having less emphasis on the material since the fabric will not reveal its texture when it hides in shadow. On the other hand, the surface of the fabric looks rough. There are visible bristle marks, only the folds have less noticeable texture. Further, Whistler treats the sleeves in a different manner. There is less rough texture. The smooth blending between values suggests the texture of organza. Moving down to her dress, I notice how Whistler uses less paints to reveal the surface of the canvas. In this way, he was able to use the surface of the canvas to represent the texture of the dress. Notice how the hand and flower have more paints, and they appear to be smooth, the contrast between the fabric and the fragile objects is pleasing to the eyes. Whistler’s attention to detail does not end in the background. The silky curtain and fluffy carpet come to life with Whistler’s masterful technique.
After spending some time looking at this piece, I start to connect this portrait to Whistler more than to Joanna Heffernan. Indeed, Whistler capture the erotic beauty of Heffernan, he was also interpretating the personality of Heffernan based on his feelings. Through careful organization of composition, color, and texture, Whistler was presenting his feelings behind the presence of the lady in painting. The labor and attention show that Whistler is patient and dedicated with his art. Further, he values the beauty of abstract, and we learn these through his unidentified shapes and loose strokes. His knowledge in color is exceptional, the white on white does not confuse the viewer about where to look. The choice on depicting the woman with dazed complexion and the falling of white lily, represents Whistler’s pursuit in seeking vague, imaginative readings for his piece. These skills make Whistler a painter that not only paints the presence of the sitter, but also uses his own creative thoughts in capturing his model.
Again, I recall the quote from Oscar Wilde, “every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” I start to appreciate Whistler’s talent in painting portrait. If any of the details is missing from this painting, I would not be under the spell of this woman. I also start to think that, with the expectation to be known, Whistler was ambitious when painting this piece. This painting was done to perfection, it is the gemstone of Whistler’s passion.
Sienna Patino
Robert Tracy
Art 474 Section 1001
25 March 2021
“To sit for one’s portrait is like being present at one’s own creation.”
I hold this quote to be especially true in the portraits created by John Singleton Copely. I find this truth to be relevant for both the American-invented style of his self-portrait in comparison to the more English/European style portrait of himself. He wished to paint himself in two different lights, both following the different styles of art with which he chose to go forth and pursue. This is exactly why he looks so drastically different in both of these images: because he intentionally wanted to create himself to be two different personas. He carefully and methodically planned for these portraits to look as they did, ensuring the way he created himself would appeal in both styles: American and English.
His colonial self-portrait paints Copley as someone who is less formal and looks more inquisitive. One can see he is staring directly at the viewer in this portrait, not off to the side, nor at anyone else. His eyes also read well into the rest of his expression, his lips are slightly pursed and his head is tilted in a way that makes one eyebrow almost look cocked. It gives him a look of someone more human, inquisitive, creative. His clothing also looks less formal: the top button of his collared shirt is undone, and there is a great focus on detail on his clothing. The color choice of these garments is highly saturated, if not a bit exaggerated. The drapery details in the folds contain great contrast. Against his face, it turns his skin tone and texture very soft. Likewise, his hair is nowhere near as detailed. Strands are just barely visible and his ponytail is so dark it is nearly invisible.
I find the American portrait-style of Copley to be less formal, and I find that works to his benefit as an American artist. One of the primary principles that came with people leaving Europe was to separate from what they had already known and branch off into creating their society. The same can be said and true about Copley’s portraiture. Where it is obvious he took some of the elements from European-style art, this could also be effective of the colonists lacking any knowledge of other cultures’ portrait art styles. Copley’s expression looks more humanistic and less pompous. His clothing has wrinkles and details and his top button is down. The lack of elegancy humbles him, and it makes me think about the art process in creating this portrait. He stripped himself of this proud European-descended individual and created an identity of someone new within themselves, and within a new society.
Copley’s English self-portrait shares his likeness as in the Colonial portrait, however, one can see he made them from two drastically different approaches. His expression is far more blank. His eyes are half-lidded and his gaze turns off the frame. His features are not soft, but very rigid and strongly defined by his abrupt brush strokes. This heavily pushes the contrast of his bone structure. His jawline, his nose, and his lips are all very prominent. There is also a much greater contrast in his hair. Because of the thicker use of painstrokes, one can see where pure white streaks had been added amongst the wig of gray tones. Likewise, the ponytail is much more obvious as it is a different color from the background. Due to the high detail in his face, there is a lack of detail in his clothing. They, instead, stand as large masses of red and white with the brush strokes implicating the lines where the wrinkles would be within them. It almost blurs together, forcing the viewer to fixate more on the face.
I find Copley’s English self-portrait to be much more traditional, especially in the way people typically think of self-portraits even today. People want to see themselves in the best light possible, even if certain features are exaggerated. I believe this portrait was intentionally painted to look posher and high class to comply with European art standards for the time. There is a greater exaggeration of contrast with the heavy use of white paint. He also made his nose and lips much more defined. He made sure there was a distinct shape to the bridge of his nose as it popped out from the rest of his face. In the same manner, his top lip is much plumper, making his lips look fuller overall. The higher-defined details in his hair also make it appear thicker. In this piece, he looks much more idealized. He looks younger, bolder, and more pompous than his Colonist-style portrait. This is where Copley wanted to be created in the light of a traditional European painter. He wanted to look as sculpturesque as others had painted their figures for centuries.
“To sit for one’s portrait is like being present at one’s own creation.” It is a quote especially true of portraitists. Copley happened to be a portraitist of dynamic styles. His Colonist/American style appeared softer and took the viewer’s eye in a gaze away from just the facial features. Instead, the eyes are lead throughout the piece, gazing at the intricate clothing and finding details that appeared to be hidden at first glance. In contrast, his European-style portrait poses him as someone in a high position of power, jaw out and gaze looking stoic off into the distance. This is someone who wanted to be seen in the eyes of others as deserving of respect. He wanted to be seen as someone of importance. I believe these portraits were created to demonstrate Copley visualized in different cultures. Ultimately, both of them are incredibly notable historical self-portraits of an American-born painter, but his being a European-descendant painter must not be discredited either. The influence of the European culture mixed in with the progressive American style pushed Copley into the unique mix we know it as today. I feel like his versatility as an artist is truly obvious in these portraits. Likewise, I also think he created himself in two very different styles.
Josett Manotham-Garin
Robert Tracy
ART 472 – 1001/ART 474 –1001
25 Mar 2021
First Opinion Paper: Analysis of the Raft of the Medusa
(Regarding Gericault’s Raft of the Medusa) “The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!” (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur, 1819).
For this first writing assignment, I will be focusing on one painting from ART 472 by Theodore Gericault (I also posted this on the other blog).
Scene de Naufrage (Shipwreck Scene), or Raft of the Medusa (1818-1819), portrays survivors of a catastrophic shipwreck. French painter, Theodore Gericault (1791-1824), drew attention to this painting by highlighting the gruesome nature of the event. Neoclassicism showed the aesthetics of elegance and heroism. But this painting marked the beginning of Romanticism, denying elements of Neoclassicism in the art. Raft of the Medusa is an oil on canvas painting that is life-sized. It debuted in 1819 at the Paris Salon, where it drew a large crowd and ignited debate among those who could not understand the work. This artwork is now on display at the Louvre Museum in Paris.
The artwork narrates a scene featuring a French naval ship called Meduse. It explains the horrific event of the accident as well as the aftershocks. Observers expressed divided views when the painting was presented to the public for the first time. Some were enthralled by the grotesque yet believable portrayal, while others objected to the realistic depiction of corpses, not perceived as desirable beauty. Raft of the Medusa was a turning point in French Romanticism. It set the basis for an anti-Neoclassical artistic movement.
Neoclassicism is an artistic approach that focused mainly on antiquity from Greece and Rome, which evoked unity, precision, and idealism. These characterizations were mostly rejected by the Romanticism movement. Although Gericault’s composition and figures were indeed classical, the shift in artistic direction drew attention between the Romanticism and Neoclassicism movements. Widened admiration of nature, as well as a rapture of emotions over reason and rationality, were some features of Romanticism. Not just that, but it was also a self-reflection to the artist and more of an in-depth study of human development. It emphasized that sense and emotions were just as equally important as understanding and experiencing the world. Gericault discusses the absence of normalcy in the visual arts, citing main figures were viewed as glorified heroes instead of ordinary people. He quotes, according to the PowerPoint, “The usual hero adventure begins with someone from whom something has been taken, or who feels there is something lacking in the normal experience available or permitted to the members of society. The person then takes off on a series of adventures beyond the ordinary. . .” He was intrigued by the shipwreck, and he envisioned this to be much different compared to the elements of Neoclassicism. There was no hero, but there was a tragedy happening among these people. Before working on the final painting, he conducted intensive research and developed several preparatory drawings. Gericault proceeded to do life drawing studies by visiting hospitals to sketch actual corpses and did studies of live models that he could find.
What is interesting is the background story behind this painting. This artwork incorporates underlying social and political condemnation, which triggered outrage in France. The survivors of the French frigate Meduse brought the discussion towards psychology of the limits of the human mind. These occupants executed and consumed their deceased allies (cannibalism) and killed the weakest. Because of the ship exceeding its limit of how many can actually be on board, it was obvious that there were going to be consequences in the end. Only a handful of the men were alive at this point. The rest had been slaughtered, starved to death, or flung themselves into the ocean in desperation. Due to the negligence of the ship and its occupants, the event became a public humiliation for the French empire.
In terms of visual elements, Gericault’s use of the triangle composition to separate the victims reflects his morbid viewpoint of the tragedy. Not only that, the lighting runs through both sides, making an x-shaped effect. The figures are divided into four categories: the deceased and wounded are on the left, followed by those trying to stand up in the middle towards the right. There are three figures huddled together by the masses in the middle in the third group, and then a man waving the flag in panic in the fourth group. When looking closer at the horizon line, there is a small speck that represents another boat, which is why the man with the flag is trying to catch their attention. There is a minuscule chance that they will come to rescue them, which makes this painting much more tragic.
The illumination in Raft of the Medusa is reminiscent of the Baroque style. The style used here is chiaroscuro, which has bold contrasts against the composition. Tenebrism (dramatic lighting) also enunciates the style of chiaroscuro. When the sky coincides dramatically with the gloom of the ocean, it displays imminent destruction. Darkness dominates the overall work, creating a drastic context to which the victims stand out as a harsh testament to humanity. The horizon line draws two main points: the first being the tide that surrounds the occupants. The second is the flag in the top right corner that is lifted as a final gesture of hope to the ship that may or may not save them. By using the chiaroscuro technique, it emphasizes the drama much further. It creates this sense of urgency while others are in desperation to survive. The entire composition also tackles the feeling of hope expressed through the black figure.
The shades have a gloomy, intense range, which is typical of Romantic painters. Since the mass of bodies is the focal point of the painting, flesh tones are prevalent. Gericault’s choice of the medium (oil on canvas) is rendered beautifully. It shows how he mastered his craft, along with knowledge and technicality in the visual arts. The numerous overlapping layers make the scene three-dimensional. The bodies merge so often that it’s difficult to tell which one ends and starts. Gericault’s vibrant use of lines, tones, and colors provokes a dramatic reaction to the event. As survivors of the shipwreck plunged into the struggle for life with its shocking outrageousness, it is a representation of how an individual is entrusted to their fate.
(I missed the first assignment)
By removing an object of “fancy”, the piece itself allows for the viewers to create their idea or narrative for them to go on based on what they’re seeing. Key elements such as value and color make up a huge part of the viewing part of the artwork in itself. The viewer’s job is to take in each and every part of the detail and make up their own narrative based upon what they already know. Removing this “fancy” does not hinder this but actually can increase the brain to create something that may have never been brought upon.
Catherine Mariano
Art 474-1001
26 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
If I were to define what a portrait is, I would say that it is basically a depiction (usually in the form of a painting or photo) of a person. I would also say that many people have a portrait of themselves within their own homes. Portraits are not anything new, in fact, we can see much of it throughout art history. For me, I find it interesting how much weight a portrait can have in its most basic form as a depiction of a person. As ‘easy’ as it could be to draw or paint a person’s features in the utmost realistic way, sometimes realism is not what everyone seeks when they commission a portrait in the first place. People often want to be depicted in the way they see themselves, whether in a good or bad way, which can pose multiple problems for the artist themselves.
Portrait painters are given the specific problem of making proper portrayals of the people who commission them. With people as their main subject, it can be a tricky situation for portrait painters to have to try and appease the people and their self as an artist. In Discourses, by painter Sir Joshua Reynolds, he once said “If a portrait painter is desirous to raise and improve his subject…he leaves out all the minute breaks and peculiarities in the face, and change the dress from a temporary fashion to one more permanent,” (Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses, 1769-90). From my interpretation of this quote, I don’t think that Reynolds reference to fashion is a literal reference to the clothing of the subjects within portrait paintings. I think Reynolds is alluding towards the idea that a good portrait doesn’t solely pay attention to realism. In other words, to raise the portrayal of the painted subject, the artist should pick other aspects of said subject beyond every physical, “minute” detail. I also think that when Reynolds refers to switching from “temporary fashion” to a “more permanent” one, I think he is also hinting to the artist to create or paint something that is memorable. I think he’s advising portrait painters to stray away from creating a piece where the main point is only realism. As I keep in mind the quote from Sir Joshua Reynolds, I was reminded of the paintings by Alice Neel. I think that Alice Neel’s work is a good example of having “something special” or having discerning aspects to their portraits.
The piece that I decided to focus on is Neel’s 1967 painting named, “Pregnant Julie and Algis.” Alice Neel’s stylistic choice alone is enough to set her apart regarding her portraiture. From a quick look, I can tell that she has less of a focus on making an extremely realistic piece. I think she focuses more on the essence of the people that she is depicting. In her “Pregnant Julie and Algis” piece, I see a clear emphasis on the female subject and body. In this painting, there are two main figures who, based on their body language, are in a close relationship. I’m under the assumption that the male figure is the father of the soon-to-be birthed baby within the pregnant lady. There is a male who has the majority of his body clothed and covered. In contrast, the female is completely naked and exposed. She is laying on the arm of the male and has a visible baby bump. I think that this an interesting juxtaposition because the female body can be considered a sexualized thing, especially when it is portrayed in a nude or naked way. Meanwhile the naked, pregnant female figure is placed in front of a fully dressed man. It’s a very interesting choice to paint, but Alice Neel portrays this in a very vulnerable, intimate way.
From our class’ lesson regarding Alice Neel and her work in comparison to Mary Cassatt, I think it’s interesting how the female body is differently expressed. It was made obvious that Neel, compared to Cassatt, had more opportunity to be exposed different experiences. She wasn’t as confined to a singular or conservative society, which is why I think Neel is able to offer a different kind of lens to her work. In portraiture specifically, she can play around with creating a more freed, vulnerable sensation to her paintings and when depicting females. I think this is what I find enjoyable about Alice Neel’s portraits because although she’s able to give life portraits. It’s been discussed before that portrait painters often struggle with capturing the right essence of their subjects because the subjects themselves may not like the way the artist depicted them. Although I may not necessarily know if the subjects Alice Neel’s paintings were satisfied with the outcome, I can say that her portraits do give off the feeling that she did in fact paint real people.
In conclusion, portrait painters have a tough job. Like most artists have, there is always a requirement to please someone or something. Portrait painters have a lot more at stake when it comes to transaction of being specifically commissioned to paint others in the way the subject wants. To me, portraits are most interesting when they exude a sort of energy that commands the canvas they are on. I think that Alice Neel’s work is able to encompass this kind of feeling in her portraits. Although not the most realistic or proportionally sound, she is still able to capture the rawness of her subject. And in turn, I think she fulfills what Sir Joshua Reynolds spoke about in regard to improving or raising a portrait painter’s subject.
Submitted March 26, 2021 at around 10 p.m. – contrary to the time stamp that appears.
Andres Reyes
Art 474-1001
March 29, 2021
First Opinion Paper
“The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!” (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur,1819)
This quote by Count O’ Mahony seems to empathize my relation to the thoughts and opinions of the works of Joseph Mallord William Turner. Turner is responsible for painting imaginative landscapes that often seem to depict violent depictions of marine-styled art. His works create a tone that is instantly understood by the viewer and provides an insight on the artist’s attitude toward nature. The quote that I’ve mentioned is in relation to these thoughts, and I believe it serves as a perfect example to describe the landscapes as a captivating spectacle while also adhering to the unsettling theme. The two works that would be perfect for analyzing such compositions would be Turner’s The Slave Ship and The Burning Houses of Parliament.
Turner’s The Slave Ship is a disturbing portrayal of the Zong Incident, in which the captain of a slave ship ordered his men to throw 132 slaves overboard because water was running low, and insurance covered the cost of slaves that died of natural causes. One of the interesting things when looking at this piece is the chilling tone that is reflected when encompassing all the elements together. In one area, we see a group of hands sticking out of the water, as this indicates that they are sinking due to the pressures of the ocean waves. In the distance, we can see a ship, which is assumed to be the slave ship hence the name of this art piece. The ship looks to pass by the hands as if to pronounce their refusal to acknowledge the flaunting hands in the water. The ship plays the role of dismissal, and while I already understand the history regarding this painting, it is chilling to look at the desperate struggle of people reaching out trying to survive while the ship leaves them to die. We also see birds nearing these hands as if to feed off of these future corpses. This is further amplified when we see the color red in the water and simultaneously see fish who are also covered in red nearing these drowning individuals. While the gruesome details capture the knowledge of what’s going on, I believe the most significant contribution to this artwork is the choice of color and use of light and dark that brings this eerie depiction to life. We see grays and blues that depict somber color themes, while the use of bright colors like yellow and orange are used to amplify scenery and provide a highlight of nature itself. I am bringing the nature aspect into this discussion because there is something sad about knowing that this is happening on earth and how the people living here can commit such atrocities. When you incorporate all of this into one painting, we get an unfortunate and somber view of the past depicted in such an artistically beautiful way. This brings back to Mahony’s quote, and I feel Turner’s work in itself perfectly captures the quotes personification of beauty in both the portrayal of the artwork while including the disturbing history surrounding it.
Turner’s The Burning Houses of Lords and Commons is a series of two paintings that capture the scenery of the burning of Parliament. Turner himself was there during the event and decided to capture this scene in his artwork. In the first painting, the scene depicts the houses within a close distance from a high place. We see the Parliament houses on the left set ablaze, so severely the smoke dominates the sky, and the reflection distance of the water effectively conveys the fire’s damage. We also see a crowd gathered to see the fire, and comparing the distance between them showcases the tone of how nature in itself is a dominant force. The same scenery is taking place in the next painting but within a much longer and farther distance. The second painting truly captures just how much damage the fire creates because we see just how far the fire rises while also viewing the complete shift in the scenery. The fire in itself is both the visual and literal tone shifter. We see this with the colors, as harsh grays are used to describe the complete domination of smoke used, as they cover the reflection of the water, sky, and surrounding areas. I believe this is what effectively creates the mood of this scene and enhances the idea of nature itself as a brutal force. The complete and sheer power nature has over us is what Turner aspires to create in his works. Because viewing nature in its most violent form creates such a raw and powerful emotion for the viewer. I believe the paintings’ mood should encompass our deep thoughts, not within the painting’s details, but within the way everything is described based on both the color shifts and residual scenery. When comparing The Burning Houses of Parliament with The Slave Ship, the themes are different, yet, Turner’s talent for conveying both works heavily reflects on his understanding of combining surrounding elements like color and detail placement. Overall, the painting successfully captures this feeling of an untouchable presence described by the monstrous forms of nature. Which relates to Mahony’s quote about how something visually disturbing can evoke such beauty.
Philip Johnson
Robert Tracey
Art 472
March 26, 2021
First Opinion/Position Paper
“Your color is not true; all these contrasts of light and dark made me think that you paint the moonlight, and as for your life studies, they resemble nature as a violin case resembles a violin.” quoted by Pierre Guerin, is a quote that could describe many artworks and artistic pieces that have come and gone throughout the history of art. However, one particular painting by a special artist of the nineteenth century seems to encapsulate this quote perfectly. The name of the artist is Manet, and his work, “Claude Monet in his Studio Boat” is a wonderful artwork that the quote can be attributed to. To truly understand how this artwork manages to be an embodiment of the quote presented prior, the artwork must be analyzed from a variety of perspectives, involving its technique, execution, and more.
The painting is a good representation of Guerin’s quote. It was made by Edouard Manet, a French painter who was one of the major artists in the transition from Realism to Impressionism during the 19th Century. Manet is often heralded as one of the first modern artists. This painting was created after he spent a summer with both Monet and his wife, for which the painting was directly influenced. As the quote stated, the life studies of Monet can be compared to how a violin case looks to a violin, for which this painting’s portrayal of modern life compares to directly. The rushed yet sudden composition of this painting is one that must be applauded.
The concept the art is presenting, “Claude Monet in his Studio Boat” presents a seemingly beautiful view of a boat slowly drifting through an unknown body of water near a small port of some kind. On the boat is Claude himself and what appears to be his wife, a lovely couple dressed in fancy white outfits as the artist is trying to capture the view from the boat on his easel held up canvas. The scene’s concept is a beautiful one that leaves the viewer feeling at peace, just like the water the boat gently floats upon. Though there is more detail to cover with the concept of the painting, it will be further discussed with the technique and style. On a personal level, it makes me feel tranquil with a sense of awe as the water and background scenery fills the viewer with a feeling of majesty due to the seemingly sunny and warm day shown in the painting. In contrast to the quote which mentions the painting of moonlight, one can also view the background as sunlight through clouds rendering a wonderful balance of both light and dark to the painting.
The technique and medium of the painting is of the impressionist style which came to popularity in the late 1800s. This style of painting is usually associated with depiction of modern life at the time, as well as usage of thin but visible brush strokes weaved as its technique. Visible brush strokes can be seen in the boat and the sky. The depiction of the city behind Monet with tall smoke-stacked factories captures modern life in Northern France in the impressionistic style.
In regard to technique, Manet’s somewhat rushed brush strokes compliment the style further, allowing the brush strokes to appear as if they are mere slabs of wood that were used to assemble the boat. Utilizing this technique was most likely difficult due to it being an oil on canvas painting. There are aspects of the painting that give the “violin case to violin” expression as the colors and texture of the water resemble that of the boat. The water; however, seems rushed with its technique which is more noticeable in the foreground of the painting. The style adds to the painting’s aesthetic to a great degree as it makes a perfect dark contrast to the brightly colored sky above, reminiscent of the quote’s comparison of light and dark contrast. The oil based medium of the painting also creates a unique texture which adds to the somewhat realistic appearance.
While some might interpret “Your color is not true; all these contrasts of light and dark made me think that you paint the moonlight”, as the lack of color; my interpretation is that the painting contains great depths of contrasting color, rich in cool tones like a blue moon. Manet’s color palette emphasizes shades of blue with small sections of green. The water, boat, sky, and background sailboats present tones of soft blues with splashes of green utilized for the river bank and cypress tree. Darker shadowing contrasts in the water as reflections as well as the dark base of Monet’s boat. Browns and yellows are used in the boat’s top, houses, and factories of modern France. Other tones of whites and beiges are used for Monet and wife’s clothing, sails, and boat canvas. The soft beautiful color palette creates a relaxing and tranquil atmosphere for a mid-day excursion along the Seine River not far from Paris.
In conclusion, Guerin’s quote is one that can apply to many works of art that have been presented in the nineteenth century, but Manet’s “Claude Monet Painting in his Studio” truly captures beauty and nature in Manet’s life studies. Its impressionism style, oil based composition, and quick thin brush stroke techniques culminates in a wonderful painting that captures time spent with one of the famous painters of the impressionist movement and his beautiful wife inspiring the painting. The painting is a tranquil canvas or color and beauty.
Amanda Galvan
Robert Tracy
ART 472/474
7 April 2021
First Opinion Paper
“The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!” – (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur, 1819)
I will discuss this quote in relation to two of Francisco Goya’s paintings: 3rd of May 1808 (1814) and Saturn Devouring his Son (1819). This quote originally described The Raft of the Medusa (1818-19) by Théodore Géricault. This French Romanticism painting depicted tragedy through chiaroscuro and a stark eye for the visuals of death. Goya’s paintings use similar formal qualities to convey the darker aspects of humanity. True to the Romanticism movement, Goya foregoes realistic depiction in order to lean into the emotional effect of the events they portray. Both 3rd of May 1808 (1814) and Saturn Devouring his Son (1819) depict terrifying events, and their formal qualities are meticulously curated to depict the overwhelming despair of facing death.
The first painting I’ll discuss is 3rd of May 1808 (1814). The painting addresses “the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction” through an emotion-driven depiction of the collateral of war on the common people. The most apparent addressing of this is the subject matter: corpses and people about to be killed by a faceless firing squad. Crumpled in the foreground are the dead, marred by explicit gashes and wounds, lying in pools of blood. Goya doesn’t shy away from the harsh reality of war in this painting; this was in stark contrast to the glorified, ornamented depictions of wartime in previous art movements.
The formal qualities of the painting serve to amplify these aspects, through an intentional combination of brush style, lighting, and figure composition. Hurried brush strokes emphasize the immediacy of the moment and the fervent emotion of the scene. The main figure of the painting, the man raising his arms, has eyebrows heavily lifted upwards and visible whites of his eyes. These exaggerated facial features, achieved with only a few brush strokes, emphasize the terror of facing immediate death. In addition, this man serves as a Christ figure. On his right hand is a stigmata- a hole in the palm of the hand typically used to represent Christ and the crucifixion. The man’s importance is bolstered by his clothing, which is brighter than any other figure, and reflects the same colors as the only source of illumination: the square lantern. Through these, Goya implies that the Spanish people were on the side of the light but became martyrs because of the atrocities of war.
The shapes created by both sides of this conflict also reflect despair and death. The diagonal slope of the hill draws one’s eye to the Spanish people huddled at its base in oblong clumps, disorganized and haphazard in their desperation. In contrast, the firing squad stands uniform, in an opposing slope to the hill which the victims cling to. The soldiers’ faces are pointed away from the viewer’s perspective, in juxtaposition to the heavily emotive faces of the victims. This dehumanizes the firing squad and emphasizes the depravity of their cold intentions. The high contrast of the painting draws the viewer’s eye to the illuminated victims, laying out a framework for the story the painting tells. First the viewer notices the bodies and pleading people, most notably the Christ figure, and searches rightward for the cause of their despair.
Despite its dramatized depiction, the “hideous spectacle” depicted by 3rd of May 1808 (1814) was a very real situation during the Peninsular War of 1808-1814. Napoleon conquered Spain in 1808 and brought about an unsuccessful revolt by the Spanish people. In response, French troops killed many civilians, as is depicted by this painting. Although the Spanish government technically commissioned the painting, it was Goya himself who asked to paint it. This shows that Goya was not motivated by a patron or money but rather a visceral depiction of the emotional and physical toil of the Peninsular War on the Spanish people. Goya himself witnessed these executions, making this de tête painting a reflection of his own strong despair and helplessness in the face of political turmoil.
The second painting that I’ve analyzed in the context of this quote is Saturn Devouring His Son (1819). The painting addresses “the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction” in a markedly different way than 3rd of May 1808 (1814). Here, Goya runs with the idea of utilizing “a boldness of handling and color that multiply their effect a hundredfold”. It accomplishes a more conceptual, abstract depiction of depravity through exaggerated expressions, distorted anatomy, and heavy light contrast.
The context of this painting is highly unique. By the time of creation, Goya had suffered multiple illnesses and witnessed a number of wartime atrocities, to the point where his art style made a drastic transformation. He retired to a villa and began painting on the walls. The Black Paintings are 14 oil paintings of fighting, despair, and death. They were never attached to a patron, never given names, and never meant to be seen by the public. After Goya’s death they were painstakingly chipped off the walls and transferred to canvas. Saturn Devouring His Son (1819) was painted in Goya’s dining room.
Goya extrapolates further than his previous 3rd of May 1808 (1814) painting with even more frantic brushstrokes. Much like the Christ figure in that painting, Saturn’s face is marked by the prominent whites of his eyes and highly raised eyebrows. In this painting, however, the eyes stare directly at the viewer of the painting, no matter what angle the viewer takes. They are the brightest objects in the painting, and the viewer is not so much drawn as they are forced to gaze into them. His panicked expression and crouched, unkempt, naked appearance serve to imply insanity, or perhaps even despair at the act he’s currently committing, or a mix of both as a result of the act. The painting explicitly depicts putrefaction through the “Son”. The identity, gender, and even age of the “Son” is indiscernible because of how mutilated they are. The blood on the body is an unnatural vermillion, catching the viewer’s eye from the craze of Saturn’s gaze to the gore of the death he’s caused. Even Saturn’s body, shrouded in shadow, contrasts with the alabaster flesh of his child and emphasizes his impurity and depravity. In addition the unnatural proportions of Saturn’s limbs enhance the feelings of unease.
Unlike both 3rd of May 1808 (1814) and the origin of the quote The Raft of the Medusa (1818-19), the “horrific spectacle” of this painting is an event from Classical mythos: Saturn eating his children to prevent them from overthrowing him. The story’s themes of revolution being quelled resonate with Goya’s past experiences in the Peninsular War and his feelings regarding conflict. The inclusion of blood and panicked expressions is also not new, as seen in his commissioned work 3rd of May 1808 (1814). Yet this painting, and the Black Paintings as a whole, display Goya’s turn into a full realization of Count O’Mahoney’s quote– unapologetic depiction of the deepest debauchery of humanity, intensified exponentially by the masterful use of formal qualities.
Natasha Montes-Gomez
Art 472
Robert Tracy
April 8, 2021
Opinion Paper
It is said that the romanticism movement was emphasized on the source of artistic
experience, in which artists began to explore various stages of emotional and psychological mental states in art. But, it was also a time that art and literature were renowned as a new interest in human psychology, expressing one’s personal feelings and their interest in the view of the natural world. One artist that I will be talking about that had exhibited similar works is Francisco Goya, a Spanish painter and printmaker who is considered as the last of the old masters and the first to modernism. His work reflected the historical and important influenced events during the 19th and 20th century. In a way he responded to his surrounding of daily life, enlightenment, inquisition, and the horrors of war. As well as his bold techniques, haunting imagery, and belief that the artist’s vision is more important than tradition. But, most of all that of his own health that was declining which resulted in his work becoming more pessimistic.
The piece that caught my interest within the PowerPoint lecture was his piece, The Third of May made in 1814 using oil on canvas, that was based during the events of the French invasion. It shows of a night in which citizens were dragged and led to a secluded area and wiped out by a range of firearms. In this piece he portrays the fear within each individual’s expression, leaving the soldiers deprived of no emotion due to no facial identity. “The eyes are the windows to the soul,” by Leonardo Da Vinci, shown throughout Goya’s work that in it he pays attention to detail when it comes to expressing it through the eyes of the individuals he presents in his work. Capturing the individuals expresses emotions through their eyes of what they are going through, even if they are hiding it. With the use of bolder and darker colors of brush strokes within the piece it’s almost as if it was happening in a fast pace or of a flash capture of an image.
One of those few beings is that of a man seen as standing in front with his hands up dressed more noticeable due to the lighting of the light source within the image. Seemingly to look like the main focus, some have said he poses to be a hero ready to stand while blocking the others behind him from harm or that to even a religious stance due to his indent on his hand. Which he seems as though he is nonexistent due to not much detail focused on him. But to me it seems Goya made it seem as though the people in the piece are being treated as animals being killed off where no one else can see nor hear them. With the man’s eyes almost blurred to show how shaken and terrified along with the others who look in despair, anger, or look away to pray. Being lined up and taken out of their homes at night whether they were or were not part of the riots and dragged not knowing what lays ahead of them.
The quote by Count O’Mahony on Theodore Gericault’s, The Raft of the Medusa, “The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect hundredfold….What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!” (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur, 1819) corresponds well towards Goya’s work, especially his etchings. In his, The Disasters of War, series Goya expressed a sense of despair, death, and so forth. Yet, unlike The Third of May, his prints presented a more sinister and illustrated form. Using etching to create his prints gives off a more edgy, bold, and scratchy like texture to create nightmarish drawing. They are more intense, haunting, reflection of both his fear of insanity and outlook on humanity. Focusing on the dreamlike grotesque observation to imaginary and humorous to demonic, but that of protest against violence. They were also about historical events but that of influences towards imagination, emotion, characteristics, and politics. It reflected his originality and true opinions about social and political events.
I have only known Goya for his etchings of countless images of his observations and drawings yet to be seen until years later after his death. His prints started to present the aftermath of war and depictions of capricious subjects such as witches, ghosts, and monsters. It was as if it was a reflection of loneliness and suffering that was caused by his disease. One print being from the PowerPoint lecture called Grande hazana! Con muertos! That some have stated that it means “A Heroic Feat! With Dead Men!,” in this scene there are three dead men roped to a tree, one on the ground, the other hung with his body, and the last butchered and placed in various parts of the tree. Although it is a terrifying sight to see throughout all the prints they still contain a sense of beauty in them. Count O’Mahony’s statement towards The Raft of the Medusa, “What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture! Goya’s prints with the black and white coloration capture that sense through his imagery as a form of documentation.
Compared to The Third of May, It almost seems those individuals look like the same men from the painting. The man decapitated and the one held onto the tree seemed like the ones that the bright light shined upon giving a worried and the other a brave look at the soldiers. As the title is called “A Heroic Feat! With Dead Men!,” these three men could have been those who were at gunpoint, stripped, and left on a tree as their grave. Which brings up the statement most have said about the man in The Third of May being that of a religious figure comes to mind yet again in this scene of the deceased man tied to the tree may have been the same person but we can not tell since his face is downward. So there is no telling if it is really him or just another man that Goya had used to title the piece based on the gruesome placement of their end.
In the form of grotesque illustrations, royal portraits, demonstrates a tortured genius and the story he tells that demonstrate the events during that time in Spain through history. Goya was expressing how he felt during the time of war, events occurring around him and even to the time his mental state was declining due to his disease. He shows through his work the emotions of hunger, deprivation, and misery that destroyed his home land. Even though he was deeply affected by it all, Goya kept his thoughts private but also let out some hints of truth as a royal painter about the royal family. He went beyond and in a bold way created works that were a response towards the conflict and its aftermath that would influence others after him. Though some artists have shown heroic scenes of victory and that which would please the audience, Goya painted the aftermath of the untold side of the story that none were brave enough to tell.
Yele Wagoner
Professor Tracy
Art 472
7 April 2021
First Opinion/Position Paper and Formal Analysis
of Joseph Mallord William Turner’s “Slavers Throwing Overboard the Dead and Dying—Typhoon Coming On”, 1840. Oil on Canvas. 35 7/8” x 54 3/8”.
At first glance my eyes are drawn to the fire red and yellow hues, and the emotion that follows is a sense of urgency. The same sense of urgency experienced when witnessing a fire that is burning out of control. Turner has managed to captivate through his use of color, which serves as a focal point. As the eye darts around the scene, little pieces of a puzzle begin to come together to form a grotesque depiction of chains floating above sinking bodies that are being consumed by swells of ocean and schools of man-eating fish. This piece was ‘inspired by a late eighteenth century account of a slave ship hat threw its cargo of slaves overboard to collect insurance money”. (Eisenmen 2011)
Count O’Mahony’s quote regarding Gericault’s Raft of the Medusa, in Le Conservateur, 1819 can be applied to Turner’s piece, it states,
The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger,
death and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve,
a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect
a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!
Turner’s painterly style is very expressive with quick strokes that define objects in a hurried fashion. The feeding frenzy in the lower right is a perfect example of how these quick strokes are used to vaguely define what is seen as a chaotic disgusting scene of body parts being picked apart by gulls and fish. Varying complimentary hues are used in this scene to distinguish the shapes of the gulls from the fish.
Turner used the intensity of light to divide the picture plane as if parting the sea. This division creates a balance, as if compartmentalizing the chaos into four distinct scenes. Though the values of brown seen in the seascape are similar Turner has made a distinction by decreasing the value of the brown in the ship, as well as other areas in the sea. The use of warm and cool colors adds to the dramatic effect of this story at sea. The passage of time is shown with the ship sailing into a cool whitish-blue hue in the upper-left corner of the picture frame, which informs that the unknown lies ahead. Directly opposite this scene is a calm warm sky, which shows the calm waters the ship left behind. Near the middle foreground of the picture there is a tumultuous scene of horror and terror, where slaves have been cast overboard.
In closing, Turner’s painting is warm with inviting hues that attract the eye, while the subject matter and chaotic scenery is cold and repelling. As the imagery comes together the story intwines into a visually descriptive tale of oppression and greed. In the words of Count O’Mahony,
“What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!”.
Works Cited
Eisenmen, Stephen. Nineteenth Century Art a Critical History. New York:
Thames & Hudson LTD, London, 2011. Print.
Amanda Friedman
Robert Tracy
ART 472.1001
7 April 2021
First Opinion Paper
(Regarding Gericault’s Raft of the Medusa) “The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold… What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture! (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur, 1819)
I find this quote to be probably the best description of The Raft of Medusa. From the painting alone we can see the suffering and agony that this group of people are going through in not only their environment and living conditions but also in their faces and body language as well you can really see the despair. However, when you actually read about the inspiration of this work it really sends the message home of despair and death and hunger and Gericault did such an amazing job at rendering this horrific real life story into a painting that almost brings the viewer in and feels like they are, too, a part of this tragic scene.
The Raft of Medusa, originally named Scene de Naufrage (Shipwreck Scene) painted by Theodore Gericault in 1818-19 was inspired by the actual ship wreck of the French naval ship, Meduse, and the aftermath of it. The Meduse crashed on July 5, 1816, two years before Gericault’s painting, where at least 147 people were piled onto a hurriedly constructed raft in order to survive. Sadly, of those 147 people only 15 survived the 13 days before their rescue ship arrived. Unfortunately, the survivors did not have it easy, they lived through hell for those 13 days and suffered dehydration, starvation and even had to resort to cannibalism to survive.
Gericault was fascinated by this event and did heavy research on it and did multiple sketches and studies before the final piece. He also interviewed two of the survivors in order to get the most accurate version of the raft, he even went as far as to construct a miniature version of this raft in order to get everything perfect for this less than perfect situation. However, I think some of his research went a little too far. It’s said that he visited hospitals and morgues to see first hand the “color and texture of the flesh of the dying and dead” I am all for looking at references but going to a hospital to see a dying person for your artwork is just creepy and unsettling. But, the extensive research worked out in the end because the final product of the piece is just unbelievable. The massive scale of it (16 ft 1 in x 23 ft 6 in) and the level of details he has makes this piece very beautiful despite being such a depressing subject.
Gericault’s figures are honestly breathtakingly beautiful. The details he captures, the muscle definition and shadows and highlights are just immaculate. And the fact that the majority of the figures in the background are basically life size and the figures in the foreground are roughly double that is mindblowing to even imagine when I am only seeing this through a computer screen. One of the coolest things I noticed in this painting is the three figures on the right hand side of the painting and how he handled them. On the very far left is a man laying down that appears to be dead, and probably has been for some time now. His skin is a sickly greyish green color. You can see some of his stomach and you can just start to see the bottom of his rib cage getting more and more defined as his stomach is basically wasting away. He still has muscle mass but his shoulder/clavicle area that is closest to us you can really start to see the skeletal form emerge more than normal. His face is almost peaceful but he also looks sad, his eyebrows are slightly furrowed and his eyes look to be slightly creased like he was just in absolute agony when he died. There is also a man that is laying half over the previous man who also seems to be dead. However, what’s fascinating about these two dead male figures is looking at their skin tones. Both males are dead. We can clearly see that but, the man that is laying over top of the other is significantly paler, meaning that this man has not been dead as long as the other has. His body has no traces of a green/grey tinge to their skin he is just a very pale further proving he is a more freshly dead. There is also a man wearing some type of red cloth over his head. But the difference with this man is that he is alive, his eyes are wide open and staring deadly off into the distance. But his skin is tan and coursing with life. If you look at his arm specifically that is draped and clutching the pale man you can see the difference in the skin colors. And looking at all these three figures together as a unit are just very beautiful together and I really see Gericault use the knowledge he gained from going to the morges and hospitals to study the dead bodies when looking at these three figures.
Gericault also captured the desperation that these people must have felt really well on the figure in the very middle of the raft. Most people are turned away from the viewers trying to flag down a rescue team but this person is half facing us and we can see on their very pale face the desperation, despair and agony on their face. They want this to end and you can almost feel the emotion coming off of them by looking at them. And because of this person alone I can see the desperation that O’Mahony described in this painting.
Xiyuan yu
Robert Tracy
ART 472
7 April 2021
First Opinion Paper WOMAN WITH A PARASOL
“Antiquity has not ceased to be the great school of modern painters, the source from which they draw the beauties of their art.”(Jacques-Louis David, The Painting of the Sabines, 1799) In realition to Monet’s painting: women with the patrol. The woman in the painting is slightly sideways, her skirt seems to be dancing, full of dynamics. She stood in the breeze, elegant and moving. Holding a parasol and walking on the green grass, I feel lazy. The air lingers around her, like a fairy mist, chasing a fairy. The little child next to him is very cute, wearing a sun hat, and is looking ahead. He is just the age to bounce, so quietly showing his head, it is even more lovely. This painting is from the perspective of looking up. The shadows on the ground are shown, and they are connected to the woman in the painting to form a line, which is very complete. The existence of the little boy also highlights the loftiness of the sky and enriches the level of the picture. The color of the picture is very simple, with only light blue, white, green, and yellow. The use of overlapping and complementary colors makes it simple and natural. This painting is more three-dimensional in comparison, the colors are very gentle, and the light and shadow are on the characters. The flow of clouds, the backlight on the women’s clothes, and the shadows here are all perfect. It must also be full of the artist’s deep love for his family. There are three paintings in Monet’s “Woman with a Parasol”. In 1875, Monet used his wife as a model to paint the first “Woman with a Parasol”. The woman is half-sided, and the folds are also rotating because of her rotation, dynamically presenting this subtle movement, and the balance of the woman’s movement is what she holds in her hand. The gray-green tone of the parasol merges with the sky to combine the characters with the picture and make the characters jump out of the background. The clear sky is dynamic before people’s eyes. The little boy in the distance in the picture deepens the layering of the picture, which not only highlights the woman holding the parasol, but also makes the sky in the distance even higher. However, in Impressionism, “light is the real protagonist of the picture”. In this painting, overlap and complement of primary colors are used to form a new painting language. In order to express the dynamic changes of objects and the brilliance and weirdness of light and color, the painter adopts the small brushstrokes and tones. Some colors are no longer adjusted on the palette, but yellow and blue are sometimes overlapping, and the yellow and green, Blue and orange complement each other and make the color create new harmony in the strong visual impact. Light and shadow rely on these two characters to jump and shuttle in people’s eyes. The sky behind the woman is as transparent and changeable as water, as if it can be pierced with a finger. The sun shines on the woman’s dress through the clear blue sky. Because of the light and shadow, the dim tone of the woman’s upper body indicates that she is under the shadow of the umbrella. On the skirt raised by the breeze, there are the light and shadow that Monet is best at capturing-the brilliance of the blue sky, the dark green grass and the pale-yellow flowers around the women’s feet. They contrasted against the woman’s skirt and sleeve elbow. The flowers and plants leaning along the breeze under the woman’s feet seem to be able to smell the fresh scent of soil and flowers. Using fuzzy and large brushstrokes to depict is a major feature of Monet’s painting techniques. In this painting, we can still see the appearance of the woman holding the umbrella, but she and her son who form a triangular shape to stabilize the picture have been simplified to a person with only two black holes and eyes. However, because of this, we don’t have to be entangled in the technique of the picture, but can spend more of our minds on what the picture conveys, in the early morning, the comfort of walking with mother and child, the breeze, and the tranquility and beauty of the blue sky. Therefore, the victory of Impressionism is that it not only opens up a strange way to refresh people, but also that it can record the painter’s own feelings and pass it on to others. It can also be seen that the style of Monet’s early works emphasized momentary sensory colors to build a gorgeous world composed of colors. Breaking through the classicism that restrained painting at the time, liberating painting from purely photographic realism, and opening up a new painting genre that captures the “moment of beauty” with eyes.
Melia Bowles
Art 472
07 April 2021
First Opinion Paper
(Regarding Gericault’s Raft of the Medusa) “The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death, and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture! (Count O’Mahony, in Le Conservateur, 1819). This quote, reminded me a lot of the paintings that I learned about during the Turner unit back in February. The paintings that Joseph Mallord William Turner did fit well with this quote to me because he created beautiful paintings, but at the same time, depicted some sort of destruction and violence. I am going to be focusing on The Slave Ship, done in 1840, and The Fighting Temeraire, done in 1838. Both of these paintings demonstrate despair with the use of its imagery and invoking that feeling to its viewers.
The first painting I will be diving into is The Slave Ship which was done by Joseph Mallord William Turner in 1840. This piece did an excellent job of showing something that is a hideous spectacle but in a beautiful way. This painting was depicting the Zong incident that happened in 1781 when the captain of the ship ordered that 132 slaves be thrown off the ship after they had been running low on water and wanted to collect the insurance money for them. This event actually helped to gain more support for the abolition of slavery. For the British Empire, slavery was not fully abolished until 1833. At first glance, this painting just looks like a ship that has been caught in a storm when at sea. When looking at the artwork closer, the viewer can begin to see the chains and the hands of the slaves in the ocean. Birds can be seen flying towards the slaves in the water. The water is starting to become red, presumably because of the blood that the people are losing. The clouds in the sky are also red, giving the painting a much more negative feeling for the viewer. The ship can be seen, floating away from the people in the water, giving the viewer an idea of what is happening. The ship would rather go into the storm than helping the people in the water. Turner liked to show the forces of the elements in a more nontraditional way of landscape painting. The storm looks extremely violent and it can be assumed that even if the people in the water were able to get back up to the surface, the storm would pull them back down. When the viewer knows what exactly the painting is supposed to be depicting, it gives the painting that much more of a darker meaning. The way the sunlight begins to be covered by the grey clouds of the storm that the ship is going into shows that the story of the painting is meant to be dark, even though it is painted in a more “beautiful” way. This painting fits well with the quote because of the idea of something’s story being gruesome and hideous, but the artist is able to show it in a beautiful picture. This painting is currently on display at the Museum of Fine Art in Boston.
The second painting we will be looking at is The Fighting Temeraire, also done by Joseph Mallord William Turner in 1838. This painting is showing the 98-gun HMS Temeraire that played a role in the Battle of Trafalgar being towed in order to be broken up for scrap materials. Turner actually changed the name of the ship to fit with his painting; the crew had called it “Saucy”, not “Fighting”. When I was conducting my research, I learned that it is not known whether or not Turner was actually there to view the towing of the boat, but there were multiple accounts saying that he watched the ship from different places on the river. The viewer may not see the story it is telling at first glance. However, upon closer look, the viewer can actually see the ship being pulled by a tugboat. The two ships have a stark contrast to one another as well as their background. The blues of the sky against the white of the ship makes it appear to be a ghostship, almost a symbolism of its death. The tugboat is very brown, almost rust-like in color, showing it is worn out. The smoke coming out of it however shows that this ship is still being used and will continue to be used. When looking at the two ships up close, we can see another ship in the background going the opposite direction of them, signifying that there isn’t a battle currently happening. To the right of the ship, we can see the sun rising, showing that a new day is going to begin. The clouds and water are both red; it is meant to be a symbolism of destruction. However, on the opposite side, the sky appears to be very calm, making it appear as if there is going to be an end to the destruction that is happening. While this painting is not necessarily showing a sort of destruction at first glance, the viewer can assume that something negative is going to happen because the ship is being towed away, which makes it fit with the quote I chose.
The idea of painting the “most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death and putrefaction” in a more beautiful picture is something that Joseph Mallord William Turner was very familiar with. A few of his paintings showed that he was not unfamiliar with making the obscene into something beautiful by the use of his coloring. The paintings that were focused on demonstrated that. The Slave Ship, although being based on an extremely hideous event, was painted beautifully by the use of his coloring. The Fighting Temeraire, however, was less of a hideous event but was still based on a time of despair. The coloring that was used was meant to show that there was going to be an end to the destruction that was happening; the calm, blue sky was overtaking the red sky.
Jack Torres
Professor Tracy
Art 434 – 1002 / Art 474 – 1001
04 March 2021
First Opinion Paper
Oscar Wilde once said, “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.” While this piece is not particularly a portrait but a landscape with figures, I will be taking a look at Thomas Cole’ painting called The Voyage of Life: Childhood which was painted back in 1842. Cole’s painting has such an immersive world any viewer can see when looking at this painting (aside from the other three paintings which relate to this series). Wilde’s quote definitely hits right with Cole in the way the feeling of this painting is based on his own views as the artist rather than the “sitter” or the us as the viewers. It has such a magical feel that man would not be able to see in real life and Cole has created this world from his deep “feeling” onto the canvas for us to admire and immerse ourselves into this story he is trying to tell us.
Cole’s use of contrast really helps emphasize what he wants us to see in this piece which becomes very obvious at first glance. The contrast of the way the light is creating cast shadows in the cave the figures are coming out helps let them stand out with the use of brighter colors. The guardian angel is able to stand out and emit her energy of light into this world which immediately catches my eye when first looking at this piece. Even the baby below her is bright with life and has no worry with the beautiful scenery it is coming out of from the dark cave on the gold boat they are sailing on. There is also a burst of warm colors surrounding the whole environment in this scene which seems to be like the setting of a sunset or even the rise of one. Then we have the use of cool colors of greens and blues coming from the greenery to show us that there is life in this world along with the flowers it has grown.
The overall composition of this piece is very interesting to look at. The way our eyes view this can be compared to the golden ratio. The first thing that catches the viewer’s eye is the subject of the guardian angel on the boat with the baby because of the contrast with the bright white against the nature surrounding them. Then the eye moves out from around the figures and into the scenic view of the nature to the sky or vice versa. Looking at the scenery first will always bring back our eyes to the angel on the boat. Space helps balance the composition overall with the top half almost being filled with the rocky mountains and have a portion of the sky seen to understand the perspective from where we are looking at.
The concept behind this painting can mean anything, but the way Cole presented it this way has me thinking it’s a metaphor of this baby coming into life from such a dark place which is the cave and into this lit up nature of greenery and life. Up at the top left corner we can see a hoard of dark clouds hovering over the rocky mountains before it disappears as it moves further right which is where we see a clear sky is another indication of that feeling. Coming from a dark place and the help of this guardian angel helping let this baby see the day of light and introduce them to a life full of wonders which seems very beautiful to me. I can almost get lost into this world myself just staring into the horizon full of fresh grass and flowers surrounding my feet if I were to walk in it.
To conclude, Cole’s creative imagination helps bring Childhood to life which strongly represents Wilde’s quote where the artist is the one who has the power to show their feeling rather than the person they are painting. In this case, it is not a specific person Cole painted, but a whole story of a world with this guardian angel and baby venturing into this landscape. It makes you wonder where other life forms may be and how far these two have traveled or where they’re traveling. It’s breathtaking and I would wish painted worlds like these could be real to sight see at.
Buddy Wakefield once said, “Stop inviting walls into wide open spaces!” The second piece I will be looking at is the installation piece in the Moynihan Train Hall called The Hive from the duo artists Elgreem & Dragset. Wakefield’s quote strongly reflects Elmgreen and Dragset’s piece in letting their piece shine through in an open space where walls shouldn’t have to be “invited ” into and missing the opportunity to use it for something remarkable. It is unlike any other that I have seen before and would love to see with my own eyes someday. It’s an upside down looking city which definitely catches people’s eyes to want to look up and immerse themselves even for a moment into this piece as they go about their days whether they’re going to work or traveling. This use of space is a great provider for many people to walk through and admire since it’s available to all those that pass.
At first glance, the first thing I see or maybe others will see is the fact that it’s a scaled cityscape hanging upside down. Taking a closer look, there are many shapes that can be detected. Considering we’re looking at it from below, the tops of each of the buildings have distinctive shapes such as squares, circles, triangles, rectangles, hexagons, and other geometrical shapes throughout the whole piece. You can say there’s some pattern into this piece with the repeated shapes we see whether they go from horizontal to vertical. Each of the buildings has its own uniqueness to it from its geometrical stand point as some may seem layered than others that just stand as one whole equal building. There is also repetition and pattern in each of the buildings based on their designs around them whether they are hatched lines going diagonal from each other and overlaying or grid-like.
The use of space in this installation is great as it doesn’t take up the whole ceiling the artists were provided with but limited to the sharp-edged geometric base where the sculptures stand against and hang from the ceiling. It doesn’t overwhelm the viewers passing by to see a while ceiling covered in miniature buildings but within the middle of it while the light around it stands out as a complimentary border. There’s also a nice sense of balance with the positive and negative space where the sculpture of the piece is the positive space and the ceiling itself above is the negative space.
The illuminated buildings have such a calming feel when staring up at them, too. Color is also a play into this sense of “calmness” that doesn’t make anything too chaotic or bring out any other negative emotion. There seems to be around three types of shades in this monochromatic seeming structure. It ranges from white, tan, and greish lights that illuminate the buildings. It could also be the help of the base these buildings stand on since they buildings are reflected from it which sort of makes it seem like this city would also be standing in water. It’s very magical in that sense and can bring up anyone’s imagination in how they see this cityscape full of illuminated lights. They sort of remind me of those huge lanterns people will set out and let them freely float off into the air to bring a mesmerizing light show during the night.
In conclusion, bringing in “walls to open spaces” should definitely be prevented when such amazing art can be introduced to people during their everyday lives. It is a great escape from reality even for a moment to question and understand how a piece is made or even the meaning behind it. Elgreem and Dragset are amazing artists with great craftsmanship to be able to pull off this cityscape and hang it above the ceiling which brings enough life into the space they were given. It gives it a personality that no one could miss even if they wanted to.
Soda Souza
April 8, 2021
Art 472
Prof. Robert Tracy
First Opinion Paper
“The painter has assembled the most revolting aspects of despair, rage, hunger, death and putrefaction, and he has expressed them with an abundance of verve, a truth of touch, a boldness of handling and of color that multiply their effect a hundredfold…What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!” are parts of a review by the critic Count O’Mahony for the Le Conservateur on Géricault’s The Raft of the Medusa. O’Mahony’s review captures the essence and was able to verbally translate Géricault’s intimations of depicting the mix of desperation and despair among the Medusa’s crew members.
When O’Mahony describes The Raft of the Medusa as a “hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture” I find that this phrase could also be applicable to J.M.W Turner’s work; specifically his 1840 piece: The Slave Ship. A painting that depicts the moment after the cruel action against enslaved Africans that were thrown overboard into the sea. Even though we can’t see any of the faces or see the body language from the victims, like we could with Géricault’s work, there is something haunting about just seeing the hands and an isolated leg stretching out to the surface of the water. That sense of helplessness and despair helps elevate the purpose of this piece.
While looking at both Géricault and Turner’s piece, I can’t help but see a similar subject and narrative structures between The Slave Ship and The Raft of the Medusa. One specific similarity is that both artists used real events as their subject for their pieces. Both pieces depict desperate and helpless subjects in the foreground, while a distant ship is seen in the background. However in both Turner and Géricault’s pieces the boats have different correlations; for Géricault’s piece, the distant boat could be a sign of salvation. But in Turner’s piece the boat is the source of tragedy.
On Turner’s technique for creating The Slave Ship, Turner’s use of quick brushstroke and how the waves are endlessly moving diagonally across the canvas encapsulates the violent power of these waves. The endless motion of waves helps illustrate the severity of the chaos during this horrendous event. What pulled my attention towards this piece was Turner’s choice for the color palette, especially for the sky. A majority of Turner’s canvas is taken up by a cloudy sky that has a mix of rich warm colors, a variations od white and a little blue that peaks through the clouds. At a distance, this piece could be seen as just a simple landscape of the ocean with a ship traveling through the waves. But the color that was used to create a warm and appealing sunset suddenly starts to emphasize the real meaning and narrative of the piece.
A piece that I find to be a contrast to the mayhem and tragedy to the events of The Slave Ship, is Turner’s other piece of the same year: Dawn after the Wreck. Despite how the title sounds, this piece has a sense of stillness and a calm-after-the-storm feeling; it’s as if there never was a wreckage. As if the world continues to move on whether it has or hasn’t felt the impact of the wreckage. Another divergence between the title and imagery is how Turner has rendered and what he chose as his color palette for this piece. Though this piece is rendered so loosely, Turner was still able to communicate that we are looking out onto a calm ocean landscape, allowing only a soft haze of blue be the implied motion that a wave is crashing into the shoreline. Compared to The Slave Ship, this color palette is more focused on neutral tones and allows certain colors to be the focus; mostly the blue for the ocean and the yellow used for the first sign of the sunrise. There is no sense of emergency or tragedy. I just find the opposition of title and image to be interesting in this case.
I find it interesting that because of the influence of Géricault’s work seen in this piece, is why I find Turner’s The Slave Ship to fit into O’Mahony’s phrase: “What a hideous spectacle, but what a beautiful picture!”. Turner was able to capture that sense of dread, but also allow the viewer to understand and feel the tragedy. To allow the viewer to think critically when viewing this piece and to understand the cruelty without having to hold the viewers hand.
One thing is the fact one of the most frequent incentives for applying your credit card is a cash-back as well as rebate present. Generally, you’ll receive 1-5 back with various purchases. Depending on the credit card, you may get 1 again on most expenses, and 5 in return on acquisitions made using convenience stores, gasoline stations, grocery stores and also ‘member merchants’.
Thanks for discussing your ideas on this blog. Likewise, a fairy tale regarding the finance institutions intentions while talking about foreclosed is that the bank will not take my installments. There is a certain quantity of time which the bank can take payments here and there. If you are also deep within the hole, they’re going to commonly require that you pay that payment entirely. However, i am not saying that they will have any sort of installments at all. Should you and the traditional bank can seem to work something out, the particular foreclosure approach may halt. However, when you continue to miss payments under the new strategy, the foreclosure process can just pick up where it left off.
I’m still learning from you, while I’m trying to reach my goals. I certainly liked reading all that is posted on your blog.Keep the tips coming. I enjoyed it!