J.M.W. Turner, Snowstorm: In Val d'Aosta, ca. 1836

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Caspar David Friedlich

the feeling of the sublime is what friedlich was going for, and in my opinion not really accomplished here because there's that dude in the way. I get the intention of placing that character there to fulfill the idea that the viewer's body is in fact there, but I feel instead that I'm just staring at this guy's back while he has the good view, which actually reminds me of my art history classes, because I'm usually staring at the back of someone's head instead of the projection because of the poor use of space in the classrooms, and probably my poor choice of seat.

Why I like this painting:
-The idea of using the back is close, though it doesn't quite get the cigar. I suspect if the viewer was cropped in closer to the figure, and the figure was completely blacked out to the point he became only a silhouette, then this might achieve this idea more successfully.
-with that being said, as is, this painting has a very interesting perspective that makes the figure central and more like a god-figure. This was intentional, the use of religious symbolism was becoming less and less popular, and the idea that man could conquer all was replaced. The painting does convey that idea.
-It is oh so sublime to stand on a rock as the waves and high winds sweep by! What a lovely illusion, and much more interesting, as it integrates the viewer much more directly and immediately than other landscapes.

Albrecht Altdorfer, Landscape with Footbridge

Historians debate over why this landscape is purely a landscape. When this painting was created, from 1518-1520, pure appreciation of nature was very uncommon. Infact, it was considered anti-christian to portray a landscape without some sort of emphasis on a religious figure, or at least a reference to civilization. So why aren't people here?

What makes me wonder about this sort of thing is the question: what bound an artist to portray anything? Even if there were social standards of art, wasn't an artist just allowed to make something to figure something out, beyond just studies, and more like paintings for fun? What if an artist just liked doing something on the sidelines? Maybe Altdorfer wasn't so into humans or religion (I would not blame him) and kind of liked how creepy this whole view is. Why is the viewer looking up at this weird footbridge which is structurally completely unsound, from a point that seems to be in the thicket of bushes just beyond someone's yardline. I think historians tried to pull something out about how those weird mop-trees in the back were supposed to represent humans, perhaps spiritually. Why? Isn't that even weirder than just not having figures? I would support Altdorfer in whatever weirdness he wanted to represent, but an abandoned tower with a weird bridge that's falling a part makes more sense than just really poor architecture with mop-tree-head-spirits.
I probably just don't get it. But I really like the painting.
Because:
1) P.O.V.
2) Mystery behind it

Giovanni Bellini, Madonna of the Meadow

I don't really like the look of religious iconographic art; however, this particular painting interests me.
Pasty Mary is not that appealing, nor is Jesus, which kind of flops there like a dead fish.
The thing that interests me is the randomness of having these figures, which are usually depicted on dominating thrones, in the middle of a field with cows and peasants. This isn't random of Bellini of course; the intent was to lure low class nonbelievers like me to feel a closer connection to the goddess and babe by placing them in a familiar setting. To not freak anybody out, civilization is represented in the background by a cityscape in the horizon. Meanwhile, the black crow (which is proportionally the size of a turkey) lurks in the background, somehow not weighing down that twig its resting on.
Of course I won't interpret this as an art historian would, which might say that Mary is praying for the well-being of the impoverished workers that face a hard-life and may come up against death (the plague, who knows).
If I was a peasant, and I was looking at this painting, this is how I would relate to it, the same as if in modern times:
Angelina Jolie and her 12 billion kids sat in her lap while she wore a luxurious ballgown, which marvelously draped around her to prevent her from facing the winter's harsh winds, while sitting around in the middle of nowhere, with hints of impoverished humanity working in a sweatshop behind her tirelessly.
I would probably think: why are you sitting in the dirt with that dress, why are all of your fabulous children that inherited a god-like status naked and miserable-looking, and what are you going to do with your back to reality while I'm working my ass off for nothing, and probably going to die according to the fattest crow I've ever seen in my life levitating on a branch next to me?

What I like about this painting:
-milky flesh tone of baby, next to washed out reds and blues mixed with that ocker
-the first glance randomness of the placement of religion icons (like putting buddha on a tour bus)

Landscape: Space and Place in Art History

Limbourg Brothers, Les Tres Riches Heures of Jean Duc de Berry 1411-1416

Switching gears and going back a couple of centuries in another art history class, all about landscapes, it is increasingly apparent to me that landscapes have a lot more history and language behind them than I thought could be apparent. The material and world of landscape is fairly dry in this early time period, because it was believed at this time that landscape represented paganism. Nature was understood to be sinful and was mistrusted as something beyond what was known, and thus a danger to societal standards.

These illustrations are actually part of a calendar book that shows the allegorical calendar, zodiac calendar, and other indications of time of year. An artist was hired by Jean Duc de Berry (probably a duke) to illustrate what his peasants should be doing during any phase of the year. The seasons were illustrated, showing when to harvest, how the land will should be treated, daylight availability, etc. In this regard, the artist is not really portraying a landscape for any other purpose than functionality, unless you consider how egotistical the duke himself was, by carrying around a little book of how important he is for having so much land and so many silly peasants running around to tame it.

The peasants are actually very clearly degraded in the illustrations; depicted as dumb and class-less. In the winter scene, the shack the peasants live in is cut in half to give a clear view to the ladies warming themselves by the fire. While doing so, the ladies lift their skirts and are depicted as being so oblivious that they disregard the fact that they are revealing their genitals to not only each other but the viewer. This was added to humor the duke, and ultimately degrade the peasants.

Why I like this:
Well, first of all, isn't it kind of pagan to put the zodiac in a calendar?
The irony!
Hypocritically, considering I called the duke egotistical for having one, I would actually totally adore a little book like this. Of course, it wouldn't be for my peasants, but it might be for what kind of ingredients are freshest during the seasons, or what kind of color palette best describes a certain phase of the year. The idea of representing the seasons is all over the place in the art world, yet the idea of creating such a finely detailed work of art that is so tiny it could fit in the palm of your hand makes it quite precious.

List of What to Extract from this:
-work mini, mini book or mini series, themed chronologically, perhaps abstract representation of seasons
-fine details
-use of zodiac as time frame, dome shape at top creates interesting view
-the s shape composition of the winter scene

Cezanne: Peppermint Bottle

1888-1892
color contrast here, teal with bright red and yellow, and a stark white contrast.
the geometric controls here make this interesting. Cezanne purposely made the vase assymetrical, as the same shape is echoed throughout the pattern of the table cloth, in the curve of the folds of the white cloth, and throughout. Americans thought this was a big deal because it was still true to nature while the significant form relations made it modern. It's not my favorite cezanne, but I like the colors.

Picasso: Woman Ironing

I think I understood the big deal about Picasso when I saw this painting. Picasso painted this during his blue period and it was shown in class to compare to Eugene Higgin's, The Gamblers, 1907, but this is much more interesting.

Her face. stark.
There is an element of grace to this character that is meant to be pitied. Though minimal lines are offered and the shape seems to be very flat, I would not consider this painting static. There is an energy, though slow and sad, that is moving through the paint strokes. The wisps of cobalt blue hair against the muted, dead flesh is beautiful.
the palette is really what startles me, the choice of yellow which out of this context is a happy, uplifting color, works now as a contrast to the overwhelming blues.

Prendergast: Umbrellas in the Rain

Prendergast: Umbrellas in the Rain, 1899

The puddles!
The contrast between the repeating spear-shaped windows and the speckles of color that the umbrellas offer is lovely!
When I see this painting I think of the word: nice.
Though it's somewhat dreary to think about, with muted colors and washed out details, it is pleasant to look at and holds a bit of fantasy to it because how often does one see such an image?
The thing that makes this painting for me is the puddles.

Shinn: Early Morning Paris

Everett Shinn, Early Morning Paris, 1901

This guy compares to Degas in his later works when he is one of the first to go into the interior view of public spectacle, in circus tents and other indoor performances. But a year before, Early Morning Paris happened, which is much more Ashcan inspired, yet has a more pathetic and depressing vibe about it. The figure is a beggar, and his little friends are cats, the one in front of him is alive, and the one in the back is dead.

Reasons Why I like this:
The texture of the buildings has the appearance of flatness, as if the artist scraped the pastel down and then scribbled fine details over it. The colors at any rate are perfect, though the feeling of the painting is midday, definitely not early morning to me. The beggar does not seem very interesting to me, what's more interesting is when the buildings meet the right edge of the painting and form a strange atmosphere there, creating a blurred out illusion in the distance. My interest in this is in the buildings, which is unusual for me because I typically prefer representations of the figure over buildings or objects.

Bellows- Cliff Dwellers, 1913

example of Ashcan painter's subject interest in the urban spectacle. Bellows is later than the period of time between 1908-1913 in which the Ashcan painters held center stage in the painting world, yet is still considered an Ashcan painter. The term Ashcan describes The 8 painters in total, yet 5 of them really reigned during this period while 3 seemed to be less progressive. The first five are Henri, Sloan, Luks, Glackens, and Shinn. Ernest Lawson, Prendergast, and Davies are the lesser known and less important figures still considered Ashcan, and Bellows is grouped on to them after all of the Ashcan fuss happened.
I think the Ashcan painters and their style in general is interesting. The painters vary with different focuses, but for the most part the Ashcan painters were representing the truth of low-class or urban lifestyles.

Why I like Cliff Dwellers:
We're learning that the attitude of many american's in the 1900's to 1950's is that city life is the best life to live. I personally agree with this. The sense of community that takes place in this 'urban spectacle' is amusing to look through. The eye flows in a criss-cross motion throughout the painting, from top to bottom. The general sense of the crowd is not one of poverty or the stress of daily life even though it could be assumed judging from the painting that the figures are representing these ideas through their clothes and the general disorderliness of the crowd.
More interesting is the colors used, which is probably why I payed more attention to it. The palette seen by a lot of Ashcan painters this far seems to be murky grays, whites, and darker cool tones. The palette here is much more vibrant. It brings across the message that the poor experience sunny days as well, and perhaps more freedom from their lack of wealth. There is a feeling of joyousness, as if the street outside the murky small living quarters is a carnival for everyone.
Look at the purple that serves as the shadow on the building, I think this works really well with the buttery tones of the neighboring building, and the vibrant yellow cart in the crowd.

The John Baker Tuesday Morning Experience

"Painting and Sculptor from the 1900's to the 1950's" is my Tuesday morning class. After a morning of telling myself to get out of bed, until I finally do, after which I get a coffee and muffin on the way to the T, and then walk down windy Ruggles St, it's a relief to watch John Baker mumble about his cataracts and why he can't judge the focus of his slides. Let it be noted that this is professor John Baker's last semester here at MassArt, and he is fully aware that he is the last professor at the college, let alone the current decade, to use slides. He excuses this with insisting that slides are better quality than other photographic representations of paintings or sculptures. From my experience of this class, that is a big, fat lie. Many of these slides have seen better days, and its arguable that if you are going to represent a 2-d image in any way, that it's going to suck either way because its not the real thing. Therefore, it seems more likely that Baker probably is just too stubborn to let someone pry the slides out of his fingers before making a damned Powerpoint.
With that being said, Baker is charming with his cute little Buddy Holly frames and sweatervest. A sharp dresser and a funny mumbler, he'll entertain you with his speech patterns and will academically sweet-talk his way out of anything before you have the chance to really think about what he just said. An example of this other than his b.s. explanation of still using slides, could be when one student asked how much sculpture is really in the class considering its hardly mentioned in the syllabus yet in the title of the course. To that he mumbled poetically on and on about David Hockney (which will presumably be discussed later in the coursProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0 during only one class). By the time he had finished his monologue on David Hockney, most paying attention realized he knew what he was talking about when he shifted the subject to something else he preferred, but didn't have any real defenses for the question at hand. Much of Baker's class experience echoes this, so the general attitude seems to be we'll just let him blabber on about what he wants and take note of the cohesive moments and laugh at his old-school vernacular or dramatized phrases.
Professor Baker Quotes
"that was the cat's pajamas!"
"hip, I'm not"
"a pharmacological FAD?!"
"how could this have grown up in the prairie?"
"Oh! The weight of the past is crushing us!"

Preface

I took it upon myself this semester to take a hunk of critical studies courses out of the way. This decision came out of my frustration in needing to balance my right and left brains, finding my attention span confused, and my critique voice buried under the burdens of everything I do not know about art history or art at all.
I am now using this blog as a way of looking into the past, since these Art history classes are going to shove these images and opinions down our throats. I thought i should personally look at and record the images of the past that interest me and analyze for my own personal work what I find interesting, what I do not, what I would like to incorporate into my own work, and what I find goes against my grain for one reason or another.
Let it be understood I am doing this as a kind of personal journal exploration to record my transitions in taste and possibly my shift from being completely unbrainy to somewhat of an academic in the areas that I am required to study on the sidelines of my big deal, art education. I do in no way consider myself an art critic, and that is actually what motivates me to use my unjaded eye into gathering my own opinions, and at the end of the day get more of a connection into the past of art
If I'm going to buy the books and read what everyone else has to say, I might as well blog my own opinions in the process.