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.