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
No comments:
Post a Comment