Doodles: Fishy

I've been drawing fish lately. There is something calming about the ocean life. So, with finals fast approaching I thought the best way to concntrate was to procrastinate by dawing fish...

I'm not entirely sure what kind of goldfish this is, but I have seen various images. Lacking a proper name I just call him Mr. Googley-eyes, but that lacks imagination. ------>

This other little guy, was named Lilly, mainly because one of the children I nanny deided I should name it after her. It's my favorite one anway, I feel like it has the most personality. My doodles aren't awesome or anything, but it is certainly calming. I have one more and it was mainly a practice in color. I'me just showing a detail though. I'm not too happy with it to be honest. I need to draw more of my friends as if they were animals, like the one I did of Ror as a puffin. I'm considering drawing Joshua Berardi as a starfish. I think I might dra my darling finace Joshua as a bird of sorts, he is rather bird-like.

I also forgot about the news I have. Berardi introduced me to a friend of his, Tyler Lowe; who is a musician and releasing an albm soonish. He asked me to perhaps to do his album art. This excites me.

dropspots

My friend Sammie showed me something interesting and I think many people sould get in on this.
Check out this site:
http://www.dropspots.org/

I think this is certainly worth a try, who kows what extraordinary things could happen.

Edna St. Vincent Millay

An Ancient Gesture
I thought as I wiped my eyes on the corner of my apron;
Penelope did this too.
And more than once: you can't keep weaving all day
And undoing it all through the night;
Your arms get tired, and the back of your neck gets tight;
And along towards morning, when you think it will never be light,
And your husband has been gone, and you don't know where, for years.
Suddenly you burst into tears;
There is simply nothing else to do.

And I thought, as I wiped my eyes on the corner of my apron:
This is an ancient gesture, authentic, antique,
In the very best tradition, classic, Greek;
Ulysses did this too.
But only as a gesture, - a gesture which implied

To the assembled throng that he was much too moved to speak.

He learned it from Penelope...

Penelope, who really cried.

by Edna St. Vincent Millay

Edna St. Vincent Millay (February 22, 1892 - October 19, 1950) was an American, lyrical poet. And a personal favorite of mine. And when I say favorite I mean it. I only obsess over two poets and they are her and T. S. Eliot. I find her work exceptional and incredibly moving. I mean, the flow and prose is simply wonderful.

She was born in Rockland, Maine and her mother was a nurse while her father was a school teacher. Where her name is derived from is intersting; apparently her middle name - St. Vincent - comes from the name of a hospital where her uncle's life was saved just days prior to her birth. Later she insisted on being called "Vincent", she thought it plain.

Her parents divorced in 1904 which resulted in her, her mother and her sisters (Norma and Kathleen) moving from town to town. And despite being poor and in nearly constant motion her mother was never without her truck on literature that she often read to her children, this collection included William Shakespear and John Milton. Eventually Millay and her family settled in Camden, Maine.

Here is where she wrote her first poem.

Her literary career really began in 1912 whe she netered her poem Renascence (I'd post it if it weren't 214 lines long) into a poetry contest in a magazine called The Lyric Year. This actually ruffled up quite a controversy. It was widely recieved as the best submission but it was ultimately placed 4th in the contest. Even the first place winner (Orrick Johns - who I encourage you to also read up on) felt Millay should have won. Almost immediatley following this strange ordeal for Millay her poem was recited at some sort of banquet that so impressed a wealthy woman; Caroline B. Dow, that she paid for Millay's college education at Vassar.

In 1923 she won the Pulitzer Prize in poetry and was the first woman to be honored for this. This is when she gained a lot of popularity in America, though her reputation was soon damaged when she wrote poetry in suport of the Allied effort during WW2.

During her time in college she was a bit...promiscuous. This was with both men and women, and this influenced a great deal of her poetry. But in 1923 she married Eugen Jan Boissevan, though their marriage was an open one with both taking many lovers. One of her lovers was a fellow poet George Dillon, she wrote several of her sonnets about him. Such as -

Sonnet II: Time does not bring relief

Time does not bring relief, you all have lied

Who told me time would ease my pain!

I miss him in the weeping of the rain;

I want him at the shrinking of the tide;

The old snows melt from every mountain-side,

And last year's leaves are smoke in every lane;

But last year's bitter loving must remain

Heaped on my heart, and my old thoughts abide.

There are a hundred places where I fear

To go - so with his memory they brim.

And entering with relief some quiet place

Where never fell his foot or shone his face

I say, "There is no memory of him here!"

And so stand stricken, so remembering him.

Her husband died of lung cancer in 1949, and then she was found dead at the bottom of her stairs in October, 1950. The cause of the fall was unknown. Her work is still widley celebrated and she is considered on of America's greatest female poets.

Her most famous poem is First Fig from A Few Figs From Thistles.

An intersting bit is that mathematicians recognize her sonnet Euclid Alone has Beauty Bare as an expression of mathematical beauty.

To me her work respresents something quite beautiful. Every time I read An Ancient Gesture I feel an acheing in my chest. I tend to overlook her somewhat risque love life as it influened some of the most beautiful poems I have ever read. I feel as though her words twinge and tug at my heartstrings. They both agonize and writhe with lust, love, and a dull, throbbing heartache. I am often at a loss for words when I try to discuss her work.

Its just so wonderful.

The Graduate

In my film class we watched "The Graduate". Having never really watched the film, but having a rough idea of the plot I knew what to expect. Well, I thought I knew what to expect. I had anticipated a film that mirrored what we see with films like "American Pie" today, but this hit something on a much deeper level.

I feel as though this film is both underrated and exalted at the same time. What I mean is that it seems to me that people make way too much of the movie without really understanding the truer or deeper meanings of the film. Many aspects of this are overlooked.

For those who don't know the plot, I will sum it up. A man named Ben (Dustin Hoffman) comes home after recently graduating from college to spend time at home before he picks a graduate school. This stress weighs on him a great deal. The relationship he has with his family isn't really confronted too much other than the fact that they don't listen to him very often and assume they know what he truly wants. They throw a party for him and there he runs into Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft). She is an unsual and semi-innapropriate woman and asks Ben to drive her home as she has had a bit to drink. Once they reach her home she bullies him into coming in and propositions him. He is uncomfortable and leaves as soon as he can, which happens to be when Mr. Robinson comes home. They eventually begin an affair which lasts the entire summer. As time wears on a bit more and no one being any the wiser, Mr. Robinson sets Ben up with his daughter Elaine (Katharine Ross), much to Mrs. Robinson's dismay.

On him and Elaine's first date he takes her to strip club and humiliates her. She starts to cry and runs off, her feels guilty and apologizes. He ends up kissing her and they build a relationship from there. He actually falls in love with her. When Mrs. Robinson finds out she threatens to tell her daughter everything so Ben races off to tell Elaine first to give his side of the story. This all blows up in his face and he is forbidden to se Elaine and Mrs. Robinson as well as Mr. Robinson is furious. The families fall apart. Elaine goes back off to college and Ben follows her. She feels disgusted knowing what she does about the affair, but still has feelings for him. Shes a bit wishy washy. Turns out that she is engaged to another man, Carl; and plans to marry him, though Ben also proposes and she says 'yes', well, more of a maybe. In the end Elain goes off to mary Carl and Ben crashes the wedding and Elaine runs off with him. They catch a bus and head off, we aren't exatly sure where they are going and neither are they.

(sometimes I am just god-awful at summarizing things)

Lets start with the characters:

Ben- all the characters seem to be cloaked in various stages of misery. When we meet Ben he is confused and somewhat of a pushover. A girl in my class says she liked him in the beginning and hated him in the end. I completely disagree. I found him to be a bit repulsive in the start of the film. He was weak-willed and had the audacity to have an affair with a married woman. He also would not confront his problems and simply pushed them to the back burner. In the end he never did choose a graduate school. He is sniveling and cowardly. But as the movie progresses he developes a bit of a back bone as he wants badly to be with Elaine. He eventually puts it all on the line in efforts to win her. He redeems himself in pushing forward with what he wants. Yes, he is reckless in his way of executing these things, but love certainly does that. He beats on the windows and screams her name, completely making a fool of himself in order to pull her back to him.

Mrs. Robinson- she is the most miserable of the characters. Stuck in a loveless marriage and clearly starved for affection, though I don't imagine that was her first affair. She seems malicious in her intent but I don't imagine it was her goal to destroy Ben's life. Though I am certain she was quite jealous of his potental as well as Elaine's. In fact when Elaine is running off with Ben and Mrs. Robinson wants her to stay with Carl and live a miserable life as well.

Whether her intentions towards Ben were cruel or not, in the end she is still the antagonist and creates a good portion of the conflict. But we can't take all the blame off Ben.

Elaine- her character isn't too developed. She is a pretty girl and a smart girl and clearly a good match for Ben. She is fickle and easily manipulated, very quickly swayed however. She seems to fall in and out of love and just as unsure as Ben is about what she wants. She also seems quite childish, screaming like an infant when Ben says something that upsets her. When I say screaming I mean shrieking, a sort of blood-curdling scream.

My class ovelooked the moral dilemmas and the significance of these types of relationships. No one could look past the drama of the situations to really dive into the intricate ties between all these characters. The jealousy, latent rage, embarassment, and indecisivness. This film can speak on so many levels. This isn't just another film about a turid love affair gone awry.

The soundtrack is pretty wonderful as well and played inot nicely to the drama. The pairing of the songs, the fading or getting louder in al the right places. Spectacular.

Doodles: Birds

As I have said before, I like to sketch and doodle. As of late its been birds, birds, and more birds. I don't claim to be all that good at it, but I'm exponentially better than I used to be. My use of line has greatly improved.
I dare say my use of line has greatly improved.

I must get a better angle on color though. I love it dearly and I am afraid it eludes me at times. Someties I go a tad overboard and I am never fully satisfied. Though my friend Joshua Berardi helped me in discovering the root of this.

Until I can really tackle a piece on a larger scale that isn't just a master copy I need to stick with my smaller pieces and work my way up. I have a habit of trying to say too much in just one piece and never completely expressing myself. I feel its a common problem. I think I'll just start a small series or study soon enough to hone my skills. I feel like such an amateur...my confidence is wavering.

(I realize these photos aren't the best quality but my poor scanner is on the fritz)

My disdain for Mark Rothko

As both an artist (not a very good one, but still) and an art history researcher I often come across artists that are exalted for their ground breaking work. Most of the time these artists should be recognized for what they do, other times I'm more than taken aback by what some people consider great. Mark Rothko is one of the latter, along with artists like Jackson Pollock and Lee Krasner.
So, Mark Rothko (1903-1970) was a latvian-born american painter and printmaker. Though classified as an abstract expressionist he labeled himself simply as an abstract painter. While I could delve into his childhood and travels, I sort want to jump right ahead to his work and influences. He developed his style around 1936 when he began writing a book, which ne never completed; about the similarities between the art of children and that of modern artists. While his ideas about how children draw and how we all start is accurate, as he continues to develope his ideas he seems to get more and more...outrageous. It is as if he is fishing for reasons to explain his own work. His most famous work is classified as color field painting. The characteristics of this genre of painting are as follows:
--large fields of expressive color
--non-objective
--simplified, essentialized compositions
--"subtle nuances"
--tragic subline; collective unconcious: collective unconcious was a theory developed by Carl Jung. It is based on his observation that there are universal symbols that are present across different cultures. These occur in dreams and myth to reveal a deep unconcious connection among all human beings.
He also abandoned the idea of naming his pieces. The first 3 characteristics I see, the other 2...well, I'll leave you to judge that for yourselves, but I believe they are empty words hes throwing out to give his work more meaning than it holds.

Here is the first example I have of his. We see 3 fields of color, 2 shades of red, one panel of a cream color, a rough brown border and dividing lines. This. Is. NOT. a great piece of art. Where are these mystical, "subtle nuances", where is the tragic subline or collective unconcious? I just see red.

Some might say I need to expand my mind, others say I don't understand. Well, the truth is I don't understand. While I will agree that his assesment that as children we first step into the art world by using color to express ourselves. I can remember taking crayons and scribbling vast panes of color all over the page. But from there I grew, we all grow and develope. I feel he is spitting in the face of all those artists who strived to create the masterpeices we all know and love today.

I will say his use of color is powerful....that is all I see. I just see fields of color, undeveloped and lacking any semblence imagination or passion.

Gods in Art: Saturn/Cronus

I became fixated on a particularly dark painting recently, or more re-fixated. This piece is Saturn Devouring his Son (1819) by Francisco de Goya. It made me consider the various ways the gods are represented in art. They are shown in a godly way, shown as all powerful and to be feared beings. And on the other side we can see them depicted as malicious beasts. To understand the meanings behind these various depictions we need to know the history and story of Saturn or Cronus.

In Roman mythology he is Saturn and n Greek mythology he is Cronus, not to be confused with Chronos; the personification of time. The story behind him is roughly the same in both cultures. He was the leader and the youngest of the first generation of the Titans. The Titans were the descendents of Gaia/Terra (goddess of the earth) and Uranus/Caelus (god of the sky). Saturn/Cronus was the god of agriculture, justice, and strength. He was the deity of the harvest and often it is attributed for him to be holding a sickle in his left hand and a bundle of wheat in his right.

Gaia/Terra asked for help from Saturn/Cronus because Uranus/Caelus was placing some of his children under the earth, as he hated them - mainly the children with the fifty heads. Saturn/Cronus waited for his father and castrated him with his sickle. Fro the blood sprang forth the Giants, a fourth race of monsters, and the Furies whose purpose was to punish the sinners. They are referred to as "those who walk in the darkness". Aphrodite/Venus emerged where the member was cast into the sea.

As he desposed of his father he became ruler of the universe. He reignd with her sister, Ops/Rhea, who he also married, One day it was prophesied that he would lose power when one his children would rise up and kill him. To prevent this from happening he would swallow each of his children following their birth. Upon the birth of their 6th child, Jupiter/Zeus; he was spirited away to the island of Crete and Ops/Rhea placed a stone in swaddling cothes and tricked him into swallowing it. As Jupiter/Zeus grew up he was taken care of and aided by his grandmother Gaia/Terra. Once he reached adulthood he secured a job as cup-bearer to Saturn/Cronus and gave him a potion that caused him to vomit up Saturn/Cronus's five siblings; Vestia/Hestia, Ceres/Demeter, Juno/Hera, Pluto/Hades, and Neptune/Poseidon.

This started a war that nearly destroyed the universe. It ended with Saturn/Cronus being defeated and him and his brother being imprisoned in Tatarus, a dark region at the end of the earth. Jupiter/Zeus then took the throne and ruled. Another myth ends with Saturn/Cronus fleeing to Rome and establishing the Golden Age.

The myth and legend behind Saturn/Cronus paints various pctures about him. First he seems caring by helping his mother and siblings with the murder of his father, but it seems as though it was done to though selfish means. Then he becomes monsterous as he devours his children. And there there is the possibilty of him becoming a great leader in Rome. These conflicting views sotimes lead to confusion in how to show him in art but each artist figures out he wants to exemplify this god.

This is Cronus and Rhea (475 - 425 BCE) attributte to the Nausicaa painter. It is painted on a greek vase. Here we see Rhea handing over the stone for Cronus to swallow. This trickery among the gods is not umcommon in legends and is often depicted in the art world, but this story is the most commonly reference one. There is another depiction done in a relief sculpture.
This is Kronos and Rhea (Kronos is another accepted spelling). Artist is unknown.

Rhea is considered somewhat of a heroine for this. Had he known what might have he done?

He isn't aways shown this way, he often shown on his own as well.
This is Saturnus (1546) by Caravaggio. It is a drawing and shows him as a god; strong and powerful. This is a piece where Cronus/Saturn is exalted and adored. It looks similar to many of the statues adorning the Temple of Saturn located at the western end of the Forum Romanum, the heart of the commerce for ancient Romans.

This place is often visited during the festival of Saturnalia in ancient Rome.

The most interesting of pieces depicting Saturn/Cronus are the ones showing him as the mosterous being I imagine him to

be. Here we see Saturn Devouring his Son (1819) by Francisco de Goya. I love that here he seems primative and horrific. He grasps he body and literally tears it limb from limb. The blood and he look on his face is captivating. There is some weaknes in him eventhough he is the one devouring his son. It is as if he is completely fueled by fear. His twisted body and wide eyes leave me feeling uncomfortable, but I can't look away.

All in all, no matter how he is shown the general feeling is always the same, one of fear and power.

Chuck Close

This artist is contemporary and in a drawing class I took 2 years ago I became exraordinarily transfixed on him. He's an american painter born in 1940 who achieved incredible recognition through his massive-scale paintings and his work using photorealism and hyperreailsm. He is the amazing Chuck Close.

Photorealism is the genre of painting based on making a painting from a photograph; it began in the late 1960's. It eveolved from pop art as a reaction to Abstract Expressionism.

Hyperrealism is simply considered to be an advancement of photorealism. Hyperrealist painters and sculptors use photographic images as a reference source from which to create a more definitive and detailed rendering, one that unlike Photorealism, often is narrative and emotive in its depictions. Photorealist painters tended to imitate photographic images, often omitting or abstracting certain finite detail in order to maintain a consistent overall pictorial design.

Now, Cuck Close is a fascinating individual and his story powerful and sad. The beginning is semi-standard. He graduated Yale with an MFA and taught art at the University of Massachusetts. His first one-man show was at the New York Museum of Modern Art in 1970.

His work was innovative. I studied and observed and learned all about his technique. To create his grid work copies of photos, Close puts a grid on the photo and on the canvas and copies cell by cell. Typically, each square within the grid is filled with roughly executed regions of color (usually consisting of painted rings on a contrasting background) which give the cell a perceived 'average' hue which makes sense from a distance. His first tools for this included an airbrush, rags, razor blade, and an eraser mounted on a power drill. His first picture with this method was Big Self Portrait, a black and white enlargement of his face.

Just look at the amazing detail and handiwork. Its diffcult to imagine it isn't a photograph. His work is calculated and masterful. I mean this painting is 9ft x 7ft so I can only imagine how long it took, about 4 months apparently. He used acrylic paint and an airbrush to include every detail. This was the first of his large-scale works and he just got more outrageous and daring from this point.

This piece and detail is Mark (1978-1979). This one took him 14 months to complete, he used acyrlic paint and applied it in a series of airbrushed layers that basically imitated how printers work today. Just look at the size and the detail. I can't get over the level of skill. I'm just blown away.

Look at that iris! Its phenomenal and unprecedented.

He soon implemented another technique.

This one is Lucas (1986-1987).
Just as beautiful as the one before, but stylistically more interesting. It's quite reminscent of the "pixelated" look with overblown digital photographs, which makes this idea more than impressive. If you look close enough at the detail yuo can evn see the pencil lines. Some would say it's sloppy, but I find it charming.

I have tried to utilize this technique (feel free to give criticism):

It has no name since it as purely practice for me (2007).

I think I did a decent job at imitation, but my medium was oil pastels.

Close's story only gets more interesting from this point. On December 7, 1988 he went to New York to give an art award, but he felt a pain in his chest. He managed to give his speech and then he quickly ran to the hospital. By the time he had been admitted and examined he was paralyzed form he neck down and it turned out he had a rare spinal artery collapse. Close would, so intimately, call this day "The Event". Close was in rehab for several months strengthening his muscles; he soon had slight movement in his arms and could walk, yet only for a few steps. He has relied on a wheelchair since.

Close continued to paint on with a brush strapped onto his wrist with tape, creating large portraits in low-resolution grid squares created by an assistant. I can hardly fathom how difficult physically and emotionaly it had to be for him. He could no longer paint as meticulously as before and no longer could he achieve that very fine detail. His work was still beautiful and extraordinary.

He painted many people who are household names today. They include people like Bill Clinton, Kate Moss, Willem Dafoe, and Brad Pitt, along with his wife and children.

I strongly encourage anyone to view his work. Simply wonderful.

Here are some of his paintings, and you will be amazed:

Maggie (1996).

This is the one tried to imitate.

John (1971-1072).
Your mind was blown, right?

Eric (1990).

Color Theory

Color theory can be immensely complicated sometimes, but once you figure out one part of it the rest is easy to pick up on. The idea of subtractive color is what most painters use.
Subtractive color: where mixing the hues will create black.

Grasping this theory will help you understand many things like understanding why certain colors "work" together and others don't. Or how paintings are deigned, because color is a vital element of the comosition. Learning how to simply mix the colors will be better understood, you will better recognize the individual properties. And you will understand the basic principles of painting.

Start with color. Colors are classified by three properties: hue, purity and value. People tend to confuse the terms and misunderstand them. It should be known that colors will mix and appear differetly on a computer screen.

Hue: color (it really is that simple).

Purity: The freedom from other color admixtures.

Value: The luminance — brightness or dullness — of a hue, as measured by the amount of light reflected. Also called tone or tonal value.

To tint a color you would add white while a shade would be adding grey or the compliment of that color.

In order to understand how complimentary colors work you need to understand mixing colors as well as primary colors, scondary colors and tertiary colors.

The primary colors are red, yellow, and bue.

The secondary colors are the mixing of 2 rimary colors, orange, green and purple. Example - red plus yellow equals orange.

A secondary color mixed with an adjacent primary (on the color wheel) will create a tertiary color.

Colors also have a temperature. Colors are commonly described as warm or cold. Warm colors lie at the orange-red end of the spectrum, and are 'active', causing them to 'advance'. Blue colors, particularly when dark and/or undersaturated, are 'cool' and tend to 'recede'. Other areas of the spectrum remain neutral. I personally tend to have difficulty mixing colors and trying to get just the right teperature and if I want perfect color harmony I really need to get that down. I demand some sort of thermometer for paint.

There are a few approaches to having successful color harmony.

Monochrome
One hue. Composition is achieved entirely through adjusting purities and tones. A limited but powerful approach, that always makes a good exercise.
In this detail from his Diana and Callisto (1556-9. National Gallery of Scotland. Edinburgh), Titian has used a simple orange hue throughout, not far from that shown above in the color purity strip. The marvelous variety comes from modifying purity and tone with glazes and scumbles — which demonstrates the power of old master techniques. (The whole picture uses a wider color range, including blue and a pink-red.)

Complementary
Composition uses one hue and its complementary — e.g. blue and orange. The hues can be mixed in various proportions, and tones added with white or black (or preferably earth pigments).

The detail comes from a famous painting by Monet of the Beach at Trouville (1870). It was painted on the spot. Though seeming a careless, even clumsy, improvisatory sketch, it is nothing of the sort. Monet served a traditional apprenticeship, and is here playing off an orange in beach and flesh tones against chalky tints of blue.

Analogous.
Composition using just 3 hues of 12-color wheel - e.g. orange, orange-red and red. As before, the hues can be mixed, and their tones adjusted.
This scheme can be further divided into:
1. one pure hue and the other two semi-neutral (i.e. mixed, muddy, low intensity). The pure tone will advance more than the others, whether is warm or cold.
2. high key pure hues. Usually applied in a broken fashion so that hues of the same value shimmer when seen close to, but group to broad areas of color from a distance.
3. one dominant, one subordinate and one minor. The dominant is varied with different purities and values.
The detail is from Eugene Delacroix's Death of Sardanapolis. 1826. Musée du Louvre. Paris. The whole picture employs an analogous color scheme of red, red-orange and orange.

Split Complementary
Like analogous, but with the addition of the complementary of the mid-hue of the analogous range. A warm/cool balance is more easily introduced with this scheme.

This intimate painting by Mary Cassatt (The Bath. c. 1892. The Art Institute of Chicago) uses tertiary hues, and falls somewhere between a triadic scheme and a split complementary one of red-purple against hues of green-blue. The background repeats the foreground colors but in muddier and darker colors.

Triadic
Uses all three hues that are equidistance on color wheel. Hues may be varied in purity and tone as usual, and the scheme is further divided:

1. Primary colors only: very difficult to use outside posters and graphic design.
2. Secondary triadics, e.g. scarlet, mauve and viridian. Very beautiful effects can be achieved, probably because all colors contain some of the other two secondaries.
Green, blue and yellow appear in this detail from Vermeer's The Music Lesson (c. 1664. HM The Queen's Royal Collection. St. James's Palace). Harmony has also been achieved by very skillful use of tone.

I'm certain this wasn't exactly enlightening, but there no better way to learn other than reading and practicing. And I'm a compulsive note-taker....this blog is kind of enabling me.

Hellenistic Art, part 3

I left off discussing the eroticism in this era, but vicory and nobility in defeat are equally important. There is one piece which personifies all that is triumphant.
The Nike of Samonthrace (190 BCE) by Phidias is the perfect example. I should probably say explain what a Nike is first. A Nike is was a goddess who personified triumph throughout the ages of the ancient Greek culture. She is known as the Winged Goddess of Victory. The Roman equivalent is Victoria.
Originally she was placed on a cifftop overlooking the sea. And she even sees to have been designed that way. Her wings flap in the wind and her drapery is swept behind her. I love the way it bunches and folds. The setting amplified the effect the artist was trying to convey.
The damage done to this piece leaves some to be desired. The head and arms have never been recoered but we do have an idea of what those pieces were doing. Her right arm was probably raised to her face, the hand cupped as she shouted a cry of victory. The left arm was most likely outstretched like one would in a battle. Its a beautiful piece and moving. I feel like I can actually hear the spalshing water when I look at it.
While victory was often portrayed, so was defeat and tragedy; like the story of Lacoon and his sons.

This piece; Lacoon and his sons (various dates have been suggested for the statue, ranging from about 160 to about 20 BCE) was sculptued by Agesander, Athenodoros and Polydorus.
The story behind this a classic Greek tragedy. Lacoon had attempted to expose the ruse of the Trojan horse and serpents were sent by Poseidon to punish Lacoon and his sons.
We can see the intensity of the struggle. You see one serpent biting into Lacoon's left hip and him crying out in pain. And you can also feel his agony as his sons suffer alongside him, punished for the acts of their father. This piece is actually a bit reminiscent of the great friez on the Altar of Zeus at Pergamon.
Many have attributed some homoerotic ideals to this piece, and while the Greeks are known to be "boy lovers" this idea was mostly very far from the minds of the scultors.
After seeing all these pieces I have to wonder why some would disregard this era. The art shows amazing work and talent; its dramatic, emotional, sensual and powerful.

Painting Techniques: Layered Painting

I continue to branch off from my art history posts a little bit.

Bare with me.

I really felt like painting today but had neither the time nor materials at my disposal. I need more money as I've run low on acrylic paint and water colors, I'm not one for using oil much.

So I decided to read through my technique and history books, which did not quench my desire to paint, it merely exacerbated it.

I've been trying to improve my layering technique and thought reading about it and looking at various examples would help; it certainly wouldn't hurt. The method is a lengthy one, and is best suited to miniatures, photo-realism, and painting that requires a very high degree of detail and surface finish.

Following the steps properly are crucial, if you rush too much it won't have the same look or effect, which is the problem I run into the most...I always rush.

1. You begin with the idea of course and lay down some thin pencil lines and some broad washes of color.

(a broad wash of color is like a thin glaze, should be transparent for the most part)

2. Dry

3. Lay in another thin body of color.

4. Dry

5. Lay in second thin body color, within the contours of the first layer or overpainting it.

6. Continue building up the underpainting in a long, continuous process of trial and error. You can use a full range of techniques during this step.

7. Dry thoroughly

8. Lay in glazes and work wet into wet as neccessary.

9. Dry

10. Lay in thicker glazes, modifying previous glazes where necessary.

11. Add body color to recapture areas glazed too heavily.

It is also possible to alternate body color and glaze rather than leave all glazing to the end. Shadows may be created by glazes, and the final picture harmonized.

Here are some examples of finished pieces using layered painting technique-

This shows a good glazing thechnique, note being abe to see the music notes in the sky and the darkening around the edges and corners.

This is another good example.

Layering is good when you want nice transitions between different values and highlights.

Wet into wet — wet color into, over or alongside other wet color

Glazing — layer of transparent color: laid on when paint below is practically dry: any color can be used with glazing medium but transparent colors are best.

I think I might try and paint a bit this weekend, but with all my midterms coming up next week I probably shouldn't get wapped up too much in it...

Severance

I still have a part 3 of the Hellenisitc Era coming, but I'm taking a small detour into literature.

Awhile ago I stumbled across this book called Severance. I was intrigued, very intrigued. It is a collection of short, very short stories by Robert Olen Butler.

There are 62 short stories, all written form the point of view of a person or creature immediatley after being decapitated.

According to this book and several other sources the human had is believed to remain in a state consciousness for one and a half minutes. And in a heightened state of emotion, like that one, people speak at a rate of 160 words per minute. So basic mathematics suggests we would speak or think at least 240 words. So every story is exactly 240 words. Interesting, yes? The people he chose to represent is quite engaging as well. Some are factual and some are fictional and one is his own death, but all the stories and the way they're told encite some panic and leave you feeling oddly invasive.

-Mud, 40,000 BC

-Medusa, 2000 BC

-Marcus Tullius Cicero, 43 BC

-John the Baptist, 30 AD

-Valeria Messalina, 48 D

-Dioscorus, 67 AD

-Paul (Saul of Tarsus), 67 AD
-Matthew, 78 AD

-St. Valentine, 270 AD

-a Dragon, 301 AD

-St. George, 303 AD

-The Lady of the Lake, 470 AD

-Ah Ballam, 803 AD

-Piers Gaveston, 1312 AD

-Gansnacken, 1494 AD

-Thomas More, 1535 AD

-Anne Boleyn, 1536 AD

-Catherine Howard, 1542 AD
-Lady Jane Grey, 1554 AD

-Mary Stuart (Queen of Scots), 1587 AD

-Walter Raleigh, 1618 AD

-Brita Gullsmed, 1675 AD

-Louis XVI, 1793 AD

-Marie Antoinette, 1793 (I feel the AD is unneccessary at this point)

-Marie-Jeanne Becu (Comtesse du Barry), 1793

-Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier, 1794

-Andre Chenier, 1794

-Maximilien Robespierre, 179

-Pierre-Francois Lacenaire, 1836

-Ta Chin, 1838

-Jacob, 1855

-Angry Eyes, 1880

-Chin Chin Chan, 1882

-Dave Rudabaugh, 1886

-Agnes Gwenlan, 1899

-Charles H. Stuart, 1904

-Rokhlel Pogorelsky, 1905

-John Martin, 1921

-Henri Landru, 1922

-Paul Gorguloff, 1932

-Benita Von Berg, 1935

-Nguyen Van Trinh, 1952

-Alwi Shah, 1958

-a Chicken, 1958

-Vera Jayne Palmer, 1967

-Le Van Ky, 1968

-Yukio Mishima, 1979

-Robert Kornbluth, 1984

- Jennifer Hadley, 1989

-Nicole Brown Simpson, 1994

-Mohammed Aziz Najafi, 1996

-Lydia Koenig, 1999

-Claude Messener, 2000

- Lois Kennerly, 2001

-Isioma Owoabi, 2002

-Hanadi Tayseer Jaradat, 2003

-Earl Dagget, 2003

-Maisie Hobbs, 2003
-Robert Durand, 2003

-Tyler Alkins, 2004

-Vasil Bukhalov, 2004

-Robert Olen Butler, 2010

Apparently the author himself can forsee his own death, and thats coming up pretty quickly. Hmm, curious.

These stories are unique and captivating. I was particularly interested in the stories surrounding them women beheaded by their husbands, hundreds of years ago and today. The story of Ta Chin I found incredibly impressive and engrossing. She lived during the early 19th century and was decapitated by order of her husband. She seems so sad, but peaceful despite it all. She talks of her footbinding and how painful and reressing that is. Her last line is "please, before my head cut off my feet".

This post sort of rambles, I just stumbled across something ineresting.
I recommend this book to anyone really. Its unusual and magnetic.

Hellenistic Art, part 2

I left off before discussing the Seated Boxer, one of many pieces depicting men as strong, but defeated. These gave men dignity and displayed honor, they had a fairly obvious purpose here, but some are confusing with their meanings. One such piece is Old Market Woman (150 BCE - 100 BCE).

Preceeding this era all Greek art consisted of beautiful pieces of the young, strong, attractive and powerful. But this piece shows something quite the polar opposite of the norm and is very characteristic of this age. Here we see a woman wrinkled, tattered, bent with age and her spirit broken. She is weak and haggard. Despite her less than desireabe physical condition she still carries on, but not because she enjoys any pleasure form life anymore, but because she simply must.

I find pieces like this quite interesting. They aren't something most people find aesthetically pleasing, nor do they glorify any particular individual. I believe that this artist, though unknown, wanted to depict things the way they truly were and how he saw the common people around him. It is sort of a precursor for Realism when you think about it. Though a lot of Hellenistic overdramatizes some things this is truthful, but emotional all the same.

Hellenistic art was aiming to depict a social climate much wider than we have seen before. We see soldiers, fighters, and the old or dying. They handle it with sensitivity, but they still maintained some traditions in art, such as scenes including eroticism.

A very famous sculpture that openly explored eroticism is Venus de Milo (150 BCE - 125 BCE) by Alexander of Antioch-on-the-Meander. The area where the artist signed has been lost since. This piece is a roman copy and the use of marble made it a bit more vulnerable to damage, which is obvious in the lack of arms. From the information we've gathered we know that her left arm - which is seperately preserved - is holding an apple, the one Paris awarded her when he judged her to be the most beautiful goddess. And we can only surmise hat the right arm is doing. We tend to believe hat her right hand was loosely grasping at the fabric covering her in an attempt to keep it from slipping futher. This is to intentionally tease the viewer; it plays with sexuality without being outright sexual or crass.

I consider this piece to be more sexual than say the Aphrodite of Kindo where she is entirely nude. One of the many things that arouses people is not knowing and hiding her lower half form the viewer entices them. This makes her more desireable than she might have been had she been entirely nude....though I doubt all would agree with me on that. I guess some would prefer less mytery.

This next piece is more overtly sexual in it's nature, depicting the same goddess; Aphrodite, Eros, and Pan (100 BCE) - artist unknown.

Here you see Aphrodite is resisting Pan's unwanted advances and Eros rushing in to try and protect her from very unspeakable acts. The composition and set up here is quite tense, which was clearly intentional. Her archaic smile smile is interesting here, the detail work is incredible and the positioning of the bodies and twisting makes it very dynamic. I love her stance, you see how defensive she was and feel her panic and her son rushing to her aid is quite heart-warming, despite the situation.

Actually I'm a tad irked by Eros' appearence. Previous to this era he is representd as an adolescent and full of promise, this pudgy-winged-infant is laughable. He looks like the putto depicted in many other works. They were attendants to many maidens. Another issue is how babies are often rendered almost as miniature adults, but that mostly had to do with a lack of understanding of the fragile form. They even seemed to have personailites to match their unusal form. But I can fully air these annoyances another day.

But this piece, which was commissioned by Dionysios of Berytos, is exuding sex and dominance. And considering it was displayed in a buisnessmen's clubhouse you have to wonder about their tastes, though pieces like this were commonplace during this era so it could all just boil down to trends.

Another equally erotic piece is Barberini Faun, also known as Sleeping Satyr (230 BCE - 200 BCE) by Gianlorenzo Bernini. We see a satyr who has consumed too much wine and threw down his panther skin onto a nearby rock and fell into an intoxicated sleep, though it seems a but estless when you note his furrowed brow. It seems to me that this man might be playing the part most female nudes in art tend to; helpless and exposed.

While it has never been unusual to portray a male nude in greek sculpture, I can't really recall it ever being intentionally sexual too often. Sculptures like these are the product of Hellenistic scultors exploring sexuality of the human body.

Hellenistic Art, part 1

I had immersed myself in Rococo art or the past few weeks, but a conversation with Joshua led me to seek out Hellenistic art this morning. This resulted in this blog; somewhat unorganized (like most) and a bit rambling. I always ramble when I talk about this era.

The Hellenistic era is marked mostly by the dath of Alexander in 323 BCE and lasted nearly 3 centuries until 31 BCE when the Battle of Actium took place, which led up to the roman invasion. Though other sources might say it ended in 146 BCE. I tend to lean towards the former.

The art of that time is primarily characterized by using a very decadent style and being very emotional and moving. It becomes quite romantic and dramatic. Most art preceeding this period was created almost solely for the glorification of man and it’s accomplishments. It exalted particular individuals such as emperors and worshipped the Gods. Sculptor Epigonos is responsible for the creation of two incredibly moving and dramatic pieces, they also represented a group of people not often protrayed; the Gauls, shown previously as barbarians. In this era they began to be shown with dignity and character.

A good example would be The Dying Gaul (230-220 BCE)by the sculptor Epigonos (who created the Hellenistic baroque style). While it is a roman copy, the work is still extraordinary, though I still get a bit upset when I know the Greek originals were made of bronze while these are stone. The use of stone caused some issues when it came to weight...but I disgress.

This piece is powerful. This man is a trumpeter who has collapsed from injury. There is a gash on his chest gushing blood; he is dying. The muscles in his body are relaxed, his face tense and agonizing. Just look at these details; the lines in his face, his veins, the feet always catch my attention a bit. They seem to be tensed and I feel like there is so much life in such the smallest detail. And one should note how strong he truly looks even with his body relaxed. It suggests he was inredibly strong and that whoever tok him down had to have been even more so.

Another piece about the Gauls is Gallic Chieftain Killing Himself and His Wife (230-220 BCE), also by Epigonos. This one is quite moving and always tugs a bit at my heartstrings. Here we see a man commiting an act of desperation. It shows and chieftain from Gual, who, following the demise of defeat; chooses suicide over surrendering to his enemies and kills his wife to spare her being sold into slavery. These acts are very hard to understand or accept outside of times, but they boil down to love and honor.

His face is intensely expressive; pained and heavy. His body is powerful and twisting in posture while his wife’s is limp and lifeless, hanging dramatically forward. This singular act can only really be appreciated in true Lysippan tradition by walking around it, it’s theactrics and intensity can only be wholely absored in this fashion. Just look at the cloth and how incredibly realistic the bodies are. Her body, covered in the cloth; makes it hard to truly picture. But that doesn't take away from the power and intenstity.

The work never fails to astound me.

Another piece representing a man defeated but glorified is the Seated Boxer (100-50 BCE). Thankfully the original is stil intact. Though the boxer is not victorious here, or young, he is a battered veteran who may or may not be looking at the man who just defeated him. Despite his age he is still respected and clearl he still retains his strength and poise, his muscles are still very toned. The other details here are also quite revealing of his life and trials boxing. His nose is broken, as are his teeth, he also has what is commonly referred to as "cauliflower ear". His face is scarred from the leather thongs used to protect their hands.

These pieces all show the strength and resilience of men in this era.

Stay tuned for more hellenistic art and my unorganized rambings.

Jacques Louis David

About a year ago I developed a brief obsession with Jacques Louis David (1748 - 1825). His work is beautiful and moving and the work I tend to enjoy the most.

He was a very important and influencial French painter in the Neocassical style. His use of color and style actualy paved he way for Rococo art (a quite interesting movememt). He studied at the French Academy in Rome and found many artists that would influence him. During this period two of his paintings were displayed in the Salon of 1781. After the Salon, the King granted David lodging in the Louvre, a much desired privilege of great artists. When the contractor of the King's buildings, M. Pécoul, was arranging with David, he asked the artist to marry his daughter, Marguerite Charlotte. This marriage brought him money and eventually four children.

In 1787 David had wanted to become the director of the French Academy in Rome, ut the count in charge thought he was to young and decided against it, but did say he would help support him for the next several years. But David wanted the position quite strongly and them denying him what he so longed for had long-term effets that caused him to lash out againt the Academy for many years to come.

When the French Revolution cam about he became quite involved. In fact, he was good friends with Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794). He stayed while many others fleed the country, he voted in the National Convention for the Execution of Louis XVI. It is sort of uncertain why he did this, as there were many more opportunities for him under the King than the new order; some people suggest David's love for the classical made him embrace everything about that period, including a new govenment.

He eventually attacked the Royal Academy of Painting and Scultpure. The initial reason for the attack most likely had everything to do with the Academy's opposition to his work previously and he seeked to reform it. It was full of royalists and they judged people based on their status instead of their work, a huge flaw. David then began work on something that would later hound him: propaganda for the new republic. David’s painting of Brutus was shown during the play Brutus, by the famous Frenchman, Voltaire. It was recieved very well.

Most of his work throughout the revolution was conidered propaganda and was truly inspired, especially what is now one of his most famous pieces; The Death of Marat (1793).

Jean-Paul Marat, a friend of David's, was a swiss physician, a radical journalist and politician for the French Revolution. Charlotte Corday, appeared at his flat, claiming to have vital information on the activities of the escaped Girondins who had fled to Normandy. Despite Simonne's protests, Marat asked for her to enter and gave her an audience by his bath, over which a board had been laid to serve as a writing desk. Their interview lasted around fifteen minutes. He asked her what was happening in Caen and she explained, reciting a list of the offending deputies. After he had finished writing out the list, Corday claimed that he told her, "Their heads will fall within a fortnight". A statement which she later changed at her trial to, "Soon I shall have them all guillotined in Paris". This was unlikely since Marat did not have the power to have anyone guillotined. At the moment, Corday rose from her chair, drawing out the kitchen knife hidden on her person, and brought it down hard into Marat’s chest. He lost a lot of blood and died within a minute or so.

Marat was immortalized in this painting and became a political martyr. This piece is astounding and blows me away. The comosition, the color and use of light, is gives depth to this. The incredibl lifelike way the body is slumped over the side of the tub, his hands still grasping the pen and paper. Its if he is caught in the moment of death; just as the last ounce of life slips away. His work speaks for itself, you can feel the passion and the pain he must have felt. He gave Marat so much dignity.

Another brillant piece is the Oath of the Horatii (1784). The story behind this one is just as moving as that of Marat's. The painting depicts three members of the Roman Horatii family, who, according to Titus Livius' Ab Urbe Condita (From the Founding of the City) had been chosen for a ritual duel against three members of the Curiatii, a family from Alba Longa, in order to settle disputes between the Romans. In the painting we see three brothers showin their loyalty with Rome before going into battle. In the background we see women very close to them, one a wife, another a fiance, and the other a sister. They are cloaked in despair while the men are strong and don't seem to depict much emotion.

I find it interesting that he used duller colors to really emphasize the importance of the piece. Th brushstrokes are very fine and the focus is very clear. And the use of straight lines on the men sort of mirroring both the columns and the swords. It gives them more strength.

His work has always cativated me. It is beautiful, classic, and moving. It shows amazing talent and dedication to something wonderful.

When you look at Rococo art you can definetly see the influence from the Neoclassical era. But the Rococo era will be another blog post.

One thing I have always found interesting and heartwarming about David was his burial. Even though he was exiled from France and buried in Brussels, his heart was buried in Pere Lachaise, Paris; with his wife.

German Expressionism

As an art history major I should probably learn to fully appreciate each movement, but I have difficulty with a few...
Maybe I'm a bit of a classicist. I've once been called an art snob.
I've been reading up on German Expressionism and as both an artist and art historian I find the movement, as a whole, somewhat repugnant. They learned the rule and them broke them in ways that are displeasing. German Expressionism developed out of the expressionist tendencies of artists such as Edvard Munch and Gustave Klimt, the Fauves, and Gauguin and van Gogh. However, the nature of the expressionism of early-20th-century German artists also developed in response to the unique historical situation in Germany.
I will use Wassily Kandinsky as an example through this movement. is work, while popular, is not what I consider a great artist despite what many people might say. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Key characteristics in Kandinsky's work:
- non-objective works
- spiritual and emotional power of line and color
- Abstract
- bright juxtapositions of color
- squiggily, energetic lines
- meant to be experienced over time, to evoke empathy


Wassily Kandinsky began his career painting recognizable subjects in an expressive manner similar to that of the Fauvists. However, he eventually eliminated recognizable objects from his work to create non-objective paintings. He was one of the first Western artists to do this.
He used a lot of bright colors and energetic lines to evoke a strong emotional response. He wanted his work to be like music, he wanted it to be "enjoyed purely for its expressive value and not for its ability to imitate nature." But visual art isn't music. While I am all for music influencing a painting or sculpture, I don't think one should think they can imitate it. They are completely different ideas.
This is his Improvisation No. 8. It' mostly non-objective, but you can see some hints of natural elements. There are images in the top, left corner that suggest mountains. It has brigh colors, energetic lines, and I suppose it can evoke some emotions; chaotic-like feelings. Large sweeping lines may suggest dramatic, even loud moments. Smaller, linear elements suggest more quiet, intimate feelings. Areas of red may seem aggressive and intense. Areas of blue counterbalance that energy with a sort of tranquil calm. Its all color theory.
But, in my mind, when I compare something like this to the works of Jacques Louis David or Eugene Delacroix I am simply dissappointed. While his work might be successful with what he wanted to accomplish, I just think back to fingerpainting in kindergarten. He had a plan and basic composition, but to me this reads sheer laziness.
Maybe I am an art snob, but paintings like this floor me. We think this is great? This moves us like Bernini? Like David? Like Corbet?
No. He was the precursor to Pollock. It is what me and Joshua call "Hack Art". Maybe I'm too harsh...

How did we go from museums full of beautiful and moving pieces like this to Kandinsky?
Artists like Jacques Louis David created some of the most beautiful works I've ever seen yet modern artists (who even have the audactity to call their movememt the "modern" movement) want to break away from it. What is the compulsion?

I realize this blog was a bit more of a rant than I had wanted, but thats the mood I get in with art like that at times. I promise an entry on David next time around. A truly inspired one.