Lesson 4 - Bugler - Seurat

Admittedly, I was a bit surprised to discover this film was essentially about just one painting.  More surprising was that Seurat's  masterpiece is hanging in the Art Institute of Chicago.  I can't wait for the 'final exam' trip!

The questions that accompany Seurat's "A Sunday on LaGrande Jatte, 1884" have apparently have kept art historians on their toes for the past century.  As narrator Samuel West offers, "the closer you look, the more mysterious it becomes".  From the pointillism style Seurat created with millions of tiny dots and brush strokes to the possible meanings behind the subjects on the canvas, this painting certainly deserved the exclusivity of the entire film to ponder it's mystery.

I found it considerably entertaining that many people have found an overwhelming amount of sexual connotations within the enormous 11 x 7' framed work.  From the location's history of prostitution activity, to the significance of the monkey (as the word was used as 19th century french slang to describe the world's oldest profession), to the woman with the fishing pole, possibly 'fishing' for business.  Without a doubt, sex sells.  So, once someone had discovered this symbolism (whether intentional or not), it surely got people talking.

Perhaps most interesting was the fact that pop culture has, and continues to imitate Seurat's painting.  Being that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, I am sure that those who have recreated the image do so with great affection.  The film provided several examples, which encouraged me to delve a little deeper.  There are more than a thousand images on google
to be found when I performed a search for these parodies.

And people continue to contemplate the painting's mystery because of it's irony.  West couldn't have put it better when he said, " 'A Sunday on LaGrande Jatte' is a picture of paradoxes.  It depicts leisure, yet it's creation was months of hard work.  It documents a particular moment in time, but strives for classical permanence.  It's extremely familiar to us today, yet it's meaning remains elusive."

I truly look forward to drawing my own conclusions when I see the painting for myself.

Lesson 4 - Schama - Van Gogh

Vincent Van Gogh is surely the epitome of a tortured artist.  His paintings of sunflowers, stars and fields of wheat were not only a way to capture a physical landscape, but a way of expressing the landscape of his own mind.  A mind which was worn from epileptic fits, depression, anxiety, and frustration - but also with intelligent theories, creative visions and a quest for religious salvation.  Was he crazy?  Or was his mind just zealously full?

I found it quite interesting that Van Gogh didn't begin painting until he was 30 years old.  Even without formal training, he was able to convey strong emotions in his impressionist style works.  I also found it interesting that 

I also liked the way the story was told by Schama, using the actor to portay Van Gogh, and delivering his message through the words of the actual letters he wrote to his younger brother, Theo.  This was a unique take on film making, and a good introduction into the wild mind of the artist.

Theo financially supported his brother through the years, as he traveled from his homeland of Holland, to London, Belgium and France.  In return, he would send his brother, who was an art dealer, paintings to be sold.  Unfortunately,  no one found his paintings appealing enough to purchase in the beginning. 

 His early works, such as 'The Potato Eaters', were indeed 'murky' in their colors and thick brush strokes, but they still represented strong feelings.  The dark, thick colors may have dissuaded art collectors, who were looking to display classic beauty, rather than realistic, peasant filled scenes.

When Van Gogh made his way to France, he discovered (and became addicted to) color.  Perhaps it was the journey, or the new location itself, but as Schama described, "like the sunflowers, Vincent turns his face into the nourishing light".  After eventually learning the trade of impressionist painting, but managing to maintain his own style, Van Gogh played with opposite colors in a way that made them complement each other.  Blues and yellows began to boldly make his works became alive and aggressive, while reds and greens played against each other to portray contrasts in art versus contrasts in life.

I was a bit confused in regards to Van Gogh's relationship with artist Paul Gogan, but then again, Van Gogh was a bit of a confused fellow, as well,   From what I gathered, Van Gogh had wanted Gogan to join him when he resided in Provence to create an artist retreat.  This creative commune would allow them a chance to combine forces to create magnificent works of art from both of their styles fused together.  However, the relationship did not work out as either had hoped.  Although Van Gogh created numerous new paintings (often daily!), it didn't seem that Gogan took him or his work seriously.  Their philosophies on art were just too different.

I imagine it was difficult to take Van Gogh seriously when he did things like slice off a piece of his earlobe and present it to a prostitute as a gift (I suppose sunflowers would have certainly been less memorable).  But I also can only imagine what was going in his own mind, as he struggled to create paintings to ward off his insanity.

Ultimately taking his own life, it seems Van Gogh lost his battle with his own mind.  But he has succeeded in his quest to touch people deeply with his messages.  And because we understand it on such a soulful level, I guess that means we're all a little crazy, too. 

Lesson 4 - Collings - Impressionism

Imagine if you will, a 19th century Chili Cook-Off in the French countryside, with four contributors that will change the way chili is portrayed for centuries to come.  Now, for the story's sake, let's say the French have always enjoyed "classic" chili, with predictable, familiar ingredients at an establishment we'll call, the Salon Bistro.

Four creative chefs from the surrounding areas have attempted to submit their recipes for the public to enjoy at the Salon Bistro.  However, the establishment continues to reject the new chefs' submissions year after year.

So, the chefs, Monsieurs Courbet, Manet, Monet and Cezanne, decide to create their own cook-off to show the people that another type of chili can exist.  And the feelings that the new chili conveys are sensual and mouth watering, even if they are only composed of simple ingredients.

Monsieur Courbet was a chef who created recipes with what he knew.  From first glance, his chili appeared fairly ordinary.  The edges around the pot he cooked in were often overcooked and rough appearing, but this only added to the taste.  His variety of earthy spices, natural beans and meat left a sensual taste on the tongue.  Unfortunately, his addition of alcohol to the chili increased quite excessively as his cooking progressed.  Matthew Collings reported that critics of Courbet's chili expressed, "the audience at the time thought it was terrible and obscure, and just a bloated homage to himself.  But to history, it's like a sign saying 'This Way, Moderns".

Monsieur Manet brought color in as the main focus of his chili.  He knew that this time in Paris during the Industrial Revolution was one of consumerism, and that the people who were to try his chili wanted to be entertained.  Although the colors of his creation were appealing and took center stage, some of his ingredients looked deliberately disconnected.  Not to mention, Manet's main consumers were prostitutes and he wasn't shy about letting people know that these business woman were big fans of his cooking.  The public had a difficult time swallowing his food, because, as Collings said, "...you don't mention prostitution, you cover it up with prudity".

And then there was Monsieur Monet, who began by created a more formal chili for the people.  His aesthetically pleasing, artistic chili concoctions had classic ingredients, but sometimes surprised people with a pop of color, often from poppy flowers.  "Formal in art context doesn't mean being polite or wearing smart clothes.  It means visual power, visual noticability", reports Collings.  The final product was more watery than his fellow chefs, but the way he captured light on the reflection of the soupy chili could definitely catch your eye.  He did all of his cooking almost exclusively outdoors, inspired by nature, as well as Monsieurs Corbet and Manet.  Sadly, the French did not immediately care for Monet's meals.  Ironically, it was the American audience that first found Monet's chili so appealing.  So much so, that they requested several vats be created just for certain American billionaires.  Monet was lucky to be very well paid for his light and fluid chili creations.

Finally, Monsieur Cezanne created submissions for the big Chili Cook-Off.  He was a shy fellow with a difficult personality.  Cezanne's chili conveyed a unique taste because of it's carefully ordered contents.  With his tomatoes and his spices, he was able to show that chili could be both a solid meal and a fluid soup of a starter.  However, some recipients of his chili complained because the chili was always served on angled plates, distorting the view of the food and creating thick contours to the chili.  Luckily the impressions his chili left "liberated him from his own inner storms.  In art, he could control his emotions - in life, he couldn't", states Collings.

All of the chefs took big risks with their 'impressionist' chili creations.  And although the flavors didn't catch on right away,  the chili that these four 'artists' created inspired many others, and is, perhaps, the most recognizable style of cooking chili in these modern times.  Of course, people took their time in fully appreciating what the chili had to offer.  At first, the spoonfuls may create some digestive upset.  But in the end, the vision created leaves one feeling warm and fulfilled.

 

Lesson 4 - Lecture

Growing up in North New Jersey, in a middle class family, my home was filled with both art and technology - thanks, in large part it seems, to the industrial revolution.  In the 1970's, my mother, a stay-at-home mom, painted in her leisure time, while my father, an electrical engineer, brought home computers and taught us to embrace the digital revolution.

I remember a painting my mother had created (& oh, how I wish I had a photograph of her work), a mural on the wall of our basement rec room, of the New York City skyline, similar to the one below:

I always loved the simplicity of the painting, no details of buildings, but merely the silhouette of the city - in essence, an abstract creation.  I remember playing, as a child, in front of the painting, pretending I lived in the city.  Vivid details were not necessary to communicate the message of strength and beauty.  For me, the painting was alive.

I am looking forward to this week's venture into the works of impressionist painters.  As well as the history behind the artists.  The idea that the machines (creating machines, creating other machines) changed people's lives and changed artist's lives is quite intriguing.  The works of art to be unveiled are an entirely different record of history.  As Nathan Peck stated: "... the document in this case isn't necessarily about the idea of creating a factual, realistic truth.  This is finally art".

My skyline view has changed dramatically since I moved out to the Midwest some 20 years ago.  Even though my childhood memories remain, my view on the world around me has also changed.  Let's see what the simplification of abstraction can add to that...

Lesson 3 - Schama - David

This week's assignment was to watch and analyze the film, "Simon Schama's Power of Art: David".  I felt that the assignment was as much a history lesson on the French Revolution as it was a film about the French painter, Jacques-Louis David.  But, I do enjoy Schama's style of narrating, therefore I was a willing participant in this dual lesson.

I have chosen to narrow my focus on David's role in capturing the imagery of this tumultuous time in French history.

I was fascinated to discover that David had suffered a facial injury from a sword-fight.  The disfigurement affected his speech, so he spoke very little, which may have also helped him find his place in society as one of the common people of France.

Although he was less than chatty, his imagination was filled with thoughts of succumbing to authority, likely inspired by his visit to the ruins of Rome.  As Schama described the impact these ruins had on David, he said, "liberty had surrendered to despotism and the Romans had become slaves".  This message was one that David carried with him, as it certainly resonated in his art.  David wanted to change the world.

Politics were exploding in late 18th century France, and the filmmakers did a tremendous job of symbolizing this with the music, images of lightning storms brewing, and blood running thick in the streets.  In 1789, David sketched "The Tennis Court Oath" which depicted the French revolution as a force of nature, a storm of it's own kind.  He captured representatives gathered and rallied together to bring a new France to power.  The empty space captured in the drawing was filled with light, suggesting hope and ideas larger than any one person.  Although the sketch was intended to become a painting, it was never finished.

During this time, David also painted "The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons", another Roman representation of the (then) modern France.  His subjects certainly represented the numerous be-headings of those who wavered in their political beliefs,   Many of those executions were at the hand of Jean-Paul Marat, whose patriotism went to the point of conspiracy theory.  David himself had a hand in many executions, as he signed orders for deaths of those who did not share the strong political opinions of the 'new' France.

And then came the very controversial painting where he was said to have glorified a paranoid fanatic, "The Death of Marat".  When Marat was murdered by Marianne Charlotte Corday, David declared that he would honor the deceased patriot in a painting.  Instead of a Roman figure, Marat was portrayed as a hero and a saint, yet also one of the people. The stab wound was said to 'Christ-like' as it mimicked the wound Jesus had when he was crucified.   David saw his finished work as a moral re-education, much like works of art in a church, telling stories of important events.  He had hoped to better the citizens of France when they viewed it, but instead, it had a much different effect.

His work did, however, capture the attention of Napoleon, as the dictator desperately needed an artist like David to glamorize him and 'sell' him to the public.  Unfortunately, when Napoleon's reign ended, so did David's.  When the monarchy was restored, David was banished from the country for his Napoleon support.

Even after his death in Brussels, the French wanted nothing to do with him and refused requests to have his body buried back in France.

Even Simon Schama didn't like Jacques-Louis David, which I found quite ironic.  He stated, "he's a monster, but he makes ideas blaze in dry ice.  He is a fantastic propagandist - no one better".  I am not surprised that I am not the only one who doesn't care for the likes of David, but I, too, share a respect for what he was able to create.

Lesson 3 - Hughes - Goya

I have never been a fan of the horror movie genre.  I don't care to voluntarily view scenes of grotesque imagery.  Nor do I desire to feel so frightened that I am sick to my stomach after seeing brutal, violent footage.  There is enough senseless violence in the real world today to fill someone's nightmare for a century.

Robert Hughes' "Crazy Like a Genius" film highlighting Franciso de Goya was like watching a horror movie.  And to put it bluntly, there are about a dozen other ways I would have preferred to spend my afternoon today.

For starters, Robert Hughes is, perhaps, the most un-animated host I have ever scene.  I was in awe of his lack of emotion, lack of vocal inflection, and lack of enthusiasm while discussing such an influential artist.  Although this presenter had a large vocabulary and, obviously, a great factual knowledge of Goya, I found him to be mostly monotone.  I literally found myself falling asleep while listening to his voice.

But, being the dedicated student I am, I continued to take my notes and record quotes.  Honestly, the voice was ridiculously snooze-worthy.

Then we come to the subject matter itself (sigh).  I respect Goya's attention to detail, as well as his ability to create a full spectrum of different styles.  However, his later works, the dark, macabre paintings and etchings turned my stomach.

Although Goya's dark side did reveal itself in some of his earlier works, such as the detail created in on the musician in the painting "El ciego de la guitarra",

it is said that the artist's work did not completely transform until a severe illness left him death in 1792.  Goya's deafness sent him into a deep depression which Hughes described, "it turned him away from being the court portraitist, the court painter that he otherwise might have remained, into this amazing topographer of the inner self.

I openly admit that Goya's tendency to paint scenes in prisons and madhouses left me feeling somewhat unhinged.  Kidnapping, rape and sexuality are not my first choices in art subject matter either.  Although the satirical sketched depiction of aristocrats as asses riding on the backs of the common people was somewhat entertaining.

And then there were the etching plates Goya created (when he was in his sixties) with the intention of circulating his series to the public through mass printing.  His "Disasters of War" works made me cringe, gasp and gag as I was forced to take the position of eyewitness in scenes of dismemberment, executions and other horrific imagery.

In reference to these images, Hughes expressed "Art is a lie in the service of truth, the illusion of being there when dreadful things, unimaginable things happen to ordinary people".  I do not claim that these images cannot be considered art, but they are not my preferred style, nor subject matter.

If I wish to see further images along the same plane as Goya's works, I suppose I could watch movies such as "Saw" or "The Gallows" or, I could just turn on the evening news to get my fill of disturbing events, dead bodies, fearful people and cruel activities being portrayed.

I will certainly politely decline to watch further films written and presented by Robert Hughes or on any further biographies about Francisco de Goya.

Lesson 3 - Collings Civilization

Since I consider myself an agnostic when it comes to religion, the Enlightenment period in history has always intrigued me.  I definitely enjoyed Matthew Collings' film entitled, "Civilization" because it showed the rise of the Humanist movement.  Many artists during this time challenged previous beliefs that human feelings were not as important as God's reasons.  Not only did society's views influence creative works, the art influenced society.  As Collings said "...art is civilization's likely conductor."

The spotlight on Jacques-Louis David, the french painter, provided several examples of a portrayal of resentment against authorities.  David was one of the first painters to take a very public political stand.  After all, he was the official artist of the French Revolution (on a side note, how does one actually become the official artist of such an event?  Is this decided ahead of time?  Is he/she merely appointed, or is there an application process?  Why don't we hear about other artists being the "official artist" of a certain event?  Was there an official artist for Watergate?  What about Desert Storm?).

The painting entitled "Oath of the Horatii" portrayed nobility vs. the mind of the revolution.  Not only did the people convey a message to the people during this time period, but the empty spaces and the darkness of the painting made people feel that this was truly something worth fighting for.

However, David's "The Death of Marat" was the work that really caught my attention.  This piece was said to be the very first political propaganda painting, urging citizens to take a stand.    In the painting, Marat is portrayed as a saint, and his murder, a cruel injustice.  Again, the dark shapes and empty space in parts of the painting create despair and emptiness, making the viewer feel the societal weight.  "The Death of Marat" certainly got a lot of attention, as it was unveiled on the same day of the Queen's Execution in France.  Soon after, Napoleon quickly appointed David is his official artist.  I feel the painting was definitely making a statement.

David's work certainly represented civilization during this period in history, where knowledge was becoming power.  But in Spain, Francis de Goya had his own take.

"The Third of May 1808", a painting by Goya, showed the people the macabre side of civilization.  I was moved by Goya's ability to actually paint 'fear' and 'horror'.  And he also conveyed that freedom was a dark transformation.  One of the subjects is painted as if being crucified, just as Jesus was, offering the fact that the absence of reason will always be an underlying issue in civilization.

Perhaps the most disturbing example was that of Goya's "Saturn Devouring his Young".  I sincerely didn't know this type of art even existed in the late 18th century and can only imagine the reaction that it got from the people of Spain.  It is a display of feelings gone wrong, and may even represent Napoleon's invasion of Goya's country.  This certainly frightened me, but then again, art is supposed to move people - right?

I have my own reasons for my religious viewpoints, and I respect those who value their own beliefs.  I am grateful to live in an era where I can express my opinions, as in this blog, without the fear of prosecution.  I am also grateful to live in a time where artistic freedoms exist so that others may give their own voice as well.

Lesson 3 - Lecture

Lesson 2 - Schama - Rembrandt

As a child, two prints of young girls hung in my living room for as long as I can remember.  On one wall, a Renoir, and on another, Rembrandt:

My mother, a dutch immigrant, had always favored Rembrandt's style (although, I always found the Renoir more appealing).  I remember her having note cards with his portrait images on them, which she would send when she corresponded with relatives who still lived in the Netherlands.  I don't remember ever asking why she liked the Rembrandt print better, but I do remember catching her stare at it on several occasions with a thoughtful look on her face.

According to Simon Schama, Rembrandt van Rijn was one of the first artists to make use of the textures oil painting could create, He was able to create depth in his detail of rich, heavy fabrics and fluidity in the smoothness of skin.  It appeared, the more heavy his stress became in life, the heavier handed his brush became.

I was most intrigued by the self-portraits Schama shared with the audience.  As Schama described, Rembrandt wanted to create "art that exists to tell the truth about the human condition".  This was often evident in the artists ability to make the eyes tell the story.

In his earliest self portrait, Rembrandt painted himself in his studio, likely gazing at a work-in-progress.  The gleaming edge of the canvas suggests something brilliant about to be created, and the well defined lines throughout the background and foreground seemed to me to only emphasize the vulnerability of the young painter.  And then, there are the eyes - innocent, pure, almost like a young animal, unaware of how dangerous the environment around him could be.

Jump 20 years forward, and we are given another fine example of Rembrandt's abilities when he paints this self portrait:

At this point in Rembrandt's life, he had become quite admired and famous as a portrait painter of the wealthy. Schama suggested that it was likely Rembrandt was so successful at this craft because he understood the image his clients wanted to portray.  In the above portrait, the artist painted himself in a similar fashion, in a noble pose, dressed in lavish clothing.  I feel he did an accurate job of portraying his own riches (both in business and in love), but still comes off as a humble, like-able fellow.  Again, the eyes tell the story for me.  The eyes are more hardened in this later work, but still maintain a softness that pulls the viewer in.  They are the eyes of a man who has matured since his days as a young apprentice, but still appreciates the beauty around him.

After being commissioned to paint a piece for the Amsterdam's new town hall (the offer available to him only because another artist had died), Rembrandt portrayed the wealthy town leaders as soldiers in action in his painting entitled "Night Watch". 

Although not a self-portrait, I felt this piece represented in the film was worth mentioning, as it was a bold choice to stray from the usual boardroom line-ups painted in the past.  But unlike his former portrait clients, it was not what the town leaders had been looking for.

After this very public rejection, the death of his love, Saskia (due to Tuberculosis), and a humiliating bankruptcy, there was a visible shift in the way Rembrandt created.  By the 1640's, Rembrandt's work was thought to be old-fashioned by the new aristocrats in society, referred to as the 'Peacock Generation'.  But rather than bend to society's new rules, the painter's work became rougher, more textured, sketch-like  and much less popular.  Some works were even categorized as having an unfinished look to them.

Rembrandt's most powerful self-portrait was one he created later in life.

I found it interesting that he chose to dress himself in rich, heavy fabrics (which he detailed exquisitely with thick brush strokes), even though he had lost everything.  All of his possessions, even his reputation was gone.  And yet, he portrayed himself in the painting as resting more than comfortably in his golden years.  But, his eyes in the portrait are sad, tired and defeated,  Rembrandt certainly had a grand imagination when he created this, but he could not hide the truth when he painted the eyes.

When my parents divorced 25 years ago, and both moved, I never again saw the prints that were a fixture of my childhood.  And it never occurred to me, until now, to ask what ever became of them. 

Maybe, just maybe, the story lies within the heavy lidded eyes of that young girl.

Lesson 2 - Schama - Caravagio

It goes without saying that the works of Michelangelo deCaravagio were both brilliant and disturbing.  I believe the same can be said for the making of Simon Schama's film.  So, for this blog, I have chosen to analyze the film itself, rather than the artist.

There are several brilliant techniques in the film that I felt almost mirror the life of the subject.  For instance, the actors were depicted as dirty, dusty and desolate, much like those who lived just outside the Vatican palace at that time in history.  This depiction resembled the beliefs that Protestants felt in regards to paintings presented in Catholic churches. They felt the art was filthy and distracting to the true gospel of the bible.  The actors, representing the 'real' commoners of Rome were a distraction to those trying to live a spiritual life.

When the actors were portrayed reenacting Caravagio's life, the filmmakers used fog and dim lighting, highlighting shadows and adding a sense of mystery to the scenes.  These effects resembled the spiral downward of the artist's life as they showed decreased visibility and a darkness, not unlike Caravagio's paintings.  As Schama describes, "Caravagio's art crashes the safety of the frame.  It tears away at the separation.  It reaches you."  The film's lighting effects were also quite powerful, much like the paintings.

However, while I appreciate the symbolism included by the creators, I was unimpressed with the film as a whole.

For starters, there was a particular scene of a shadowy caped figure, assumed to be the painter himself, running down a corridor, away from... something.  This same clip was used multiple times throughout the film, making it appear low on budget and creativity.

I also didn't care for the scenes which made use of handheld cameras.  Although mostly used during reenactment scenes, there were a few times where Schama took advantage of the method as he was narrating, walking through the streets of Rome.  Watching these scenes was difficult, with a dizzying effect.  Although the camera 'shakiness' could be likened to the instability of Caravagio's mental state, I felt nauseated.  But, perhaps that was the point - to disturb the viewer to the core.

Finally, I found several of the film scenes unnecessary and out of place.  I didn't feel that I needed to see Caravagio's dog walking on it's hind legs, nor did I find it relevant to the film itself.  Also, the scenes where Caravagio's peers were speaking directly to the camera, as if being interviewed in real time, were ridiculous.  Such artistry would be better suitable on a cheesy reality TV show.

I admit, I am not sure if my analysis is what is expected of me for this class assignment.  But, perhaps this angle of critiquing the film making, makes me a little like the artist itself.  As the Narrator reminds us, throughout the film, "Caravagio wasn't going to do things the way he was supposed to do."

Lesson 2 - Hockney - Lens

David Hockney blew my mind.

What started as a hunch, revealed a secret in regards to the works of so many admired artists over the past several centuries.  It began when David Hockney was examining some drawings of English tourists.  These images were created by a French, 19th century portrait painter (whom I'm afraid, I could not make out the name, no matter how many times I replayed that portion of the video) and were on display at the National Gallery in London.  The sketches were detailed and 'true-to-life', and also - very small.  Hockney explained,

"I noticed this incredible accuracy about them, almost a photographic quality", which motivated him to further explore.  He found several clues that seemed to be evidence of that which was thought to be impossible.  His theory was that these drawings were traced from small images - hundreds of years before the invention of photographs!

I actually had to watch this film twice,  because I was too enthralled with the information to stop and take notes the first time around.  Is this how painters such as DaVinci created such brilliantly detailed works?

Along his quest for proof, Hockney discovered many clues to his theory.  From certain areas of paintings being out-of-focus, to sunlight on the subject's faces, to a shine painted onto armor and small irises - His adventure had me captivated, and I couldn't wait to see what he discovered next.

Hockney continued through the film with numerous experiments, with the evidence that early 'cameras' were merely composed of a dark room and a lens to create precise and vivid images (although reflected and upside down).  Science and art were combining for this secret technology hundreds of years before anyone thought it could be done.

As a viewer, I was ridiculously excited.  My fiance' came home just a few minutes after I had finished watching the video and I literally couldn't wait to tell him what I had learned!  And so, with the inspiration of David Hockney, we created our own experiment.  Keep in mind, the conditions were not the most ideal.  It was a rainy day, but my house has many windows and receives quite a bit of natural light.  I was hard pressed to find a dark room.  But with the help of a make-up mirror, and a bit of sunlight coming in from my back door (bottom image), I was able to reflect a fairly clear, full color image onto my bathroom wall (top image).

It was like I had just discovered fire.

I wanted to run around the neighborhood and tell everyone I encountered, "I know a secret!" and then explain how this David Hockney guy proved that some of the greatest artists ever known had originally created their masterpieces by tracing an image.  And then, I would want to tell them that he has all these science and mathematician friends who helped him prove this with crazy formulas that could indicated the exact size and distance of the lens that was used. And that he found patterns with paintings over the past 500 years where it appeared that artists seemed to suddenly paint... better (?). And then, I would tell them that Hockney even re-created some of these exquisitely detailed images, like the chandelier from Jan van Eyck's "Arnolfini Marriage",

showing the exact techniques with reflected images that were recreated on a canvas.

But, my neighbors might think I was a little crazy if I went around shouting all that information at them, and they might invite me to less barbecues and block parties.  So, perhaps I should just contain the bulk of information within the confines of this blog, or as a unique conversation starter at my next dinner party.

Still, David Hockney blew my mind.

Lesson 2 - Lecture

My apologies, Mr. Peck, for my previous statement that may have insulted your lighting techniques.  You have MORE than redeemed yourself with your use of lighting in this Lesson 2 Lecture video.  The effects were unexpected, over-dramatic, and fun.  I officially retract my statement from my Lesson 1 - Lecture blog: "My only critique is that the lighting could have been improved in some scenes."  And I will beat myself with a wet noodle for being so judgmental.

The topics discussed in this lecture were: the lens, light, and hyper-reality.  But, because, as a photographer myself, light is always something I am aware of, I think I'll focus on that aspect of this week's opening video.

The most notable technique in the film was that of the black-out background as Mr. Peck discussed the overview of the upcoming weeks in the class.  The high contrast lighting provided a scenario as if the viewer was watching a confessional & Mr. Peck had to reveal all the information he could in a short amount of time.

Then there was the clips filmed by candlelight, one of my favorite lighting techniques to experiment with.  As in Mr. Peck's example, the constant change of the flickering candle casts unusual shadows on the subject, as well as the background.

When the filming took place under the 'L' in the yellow glow of a streetlight, a sense of gritty reality, and even danger was portrayed.  It may not be an alley I would volunteer to hang out in, but I appreciate the lengths Mr. Peck went to in capturing this striking reality. 

The most entertaining technique was Mr. Peck's use of back-light to create  a Hitchcock-esque silhouette.  I found this fitting as it somewhat represented the narrator's mystery in his mixed feelings about Rembrandt & Caravaggio.

Thank you, Mr. Peck for the humor and insight you bring to your lecture videos.  I am thoroughly enjoying the process of analyzing the films and the paintings and can't wait to see what you come up with next.

Lesson 1 - LECTURE

Although I am writing this blog post out of order, I felt I needed to discover my writing style before I tackled the task of critiquing my professor's work.  I am hoping Mr. Peck will interpret my style as intended - factual, yet relating to my own personal life, with a touch of sarcasm & 'smart-ass' comments.  Of course, I'm only doing as instructed.  Here's to hoping my teacher won't hold these characteristics against me...

The first thing I noticed while watching the introductory video for Films About Paintings (& expressed out loud) was, "Dammit, my teacher is younger than me!"

Guess that's what happens when you wait 20 years to return to finish your degree.  It also doesn't help that the majority of my fellow students are likely half my age!

The next things I noticed was how relaxed, yet professional Mr. Peck came off on camera.  This non-threatening angle eased my mind a bit, as this Films About Paintings course was my first class in so many years.  I was also pleased to find that my teacher and I have similar outlooks on creativity.  I am hopeful that I will never stop learning.  Mr. Peck stated something similar when he declared, "I spend a lot of time in the studio, trying to figure out how to do this, how to do it in a new and interesting way".  I think it's fair to say he has succeeded  so far. I have never taken a class where I needed to blog my assignments, and I find the method refreshing and challenging.  And the fact that we have an option to take a museum tour OR a written final exam?!  Rock on, Peck.

The style of cinematography was clear and to the point (the iPhone seems more than capable of handling what you were trying to get across).  I also felt that the addition to music with the transitions made the lecture appealing to watch.  My only critique is that the lighting could have been improved in some scenes.  No offense, Mr. Peck, my experience in photography has trained my eyes to always observe the way light hits a subject.  Oh, and I think you may want to consider investing in a new bookshelf, as the one in the video appears not quite sturdy enough for the amount it holds.

Finally, I found it very interesting that  my instructor described paintings as a way for artists to tell their stories, despite language barriers.  Viewpoints like this one reveal more understanding of paintings in general, which leads to appreciation and, we can hope, perpetuation of more art in the future.

So, please pardon my Lecture blog being out-of-order in this Lesson 1 assignment.  I promise that I will continue to complete assignments and challenge myself for the remainder of this course.  And, to Mr. Peck, 21st Century Renaissance Man, I know that a little brown-nosing couldn't hurt either.*


*smart ass comments such as these are a fine example of Ms. Ansinn's writing style

Lesson 1 - Michelangelo - Marlow

As a youngster, I remember my father teaching me (along with my brothers) how to whittle a stick with a pocket knife.  As an adult, I now see that the activity was a lesson in patience as much as creativity.  Unfortunately, whittling did not hold my attention for long.  I cannot begin to imagine the amount of patience, labor and imagination required when Michelangelo chiseled elaborately detailed human forms from marble.

The narrator of this film, Tim Marlow, did a wonderful job of keeping my attention with his eloquent descriptions of Michelangelo's work, intertwined with a myriad of facts.  Even though the majority of the coverage was about his sculptures (slightly ironic for a class entitled "Films About Paintings"), the material was both entertaining and educational.   I hope to see more of this narrator (who, according to the film credits, also wrote the documentary) in future assignments.

Marlow's story begins in 1475, in Caprese, a town about 50 miles south of Florence.  At a young age, it was obvious to his father that Michelangelo was more geared towards the arts, rather than his studies, as he spent endless hours drawing.  So, he was sent to begin his training as a painter in Florence.  At only 14 years old, he went to the Medici Academy where he was introduced to the beauty of sculpting.  His unusual talent developed so quickly, that Lorenzo deMedici, ruler of Florence at the time, moved him into his palace and put him on salary.  At only 17, he created his first sculpture, the "Battle of the Centaurs".  This marble creation was said to have conveyed power, sensuality, violence and movement.  Not bad for chipped rock.

Michelangelo found inspiration to sculpt in the ruins of Rome, although he admitted to his father that he found the city rather corrupt.  In 1497, he was commissioned to create a sculpture for the French Papal Ambassador.  Michelangelo's "Pieta" was a prime example of "demonstrating his skill at transforming marble into drapery and human flesh" as Narrator, Tim Marlow described.

                                                  

In 1504,  Michelangelo returned to Florence where he created the infamous sculpture of "David", the giant slayer.  Marlow offered "... David perfectly encapsulates the spirit of the Renaissance.  A fusion of classical ideas and the values of Christianity".  Well, this 4+ meter statue certainly made a statement.  When the statue was revealed, it received a public 'stoning' from protesters who deemed the fully nude male inappropriate.  But, even critics couldn't deny, this amazing recreation of the human form was a masterpiece.

The most interesting part of this film was the story of Michelangelo paintings in the Sistene Chapel.  I am in awe of the task that he undertook when he agreed to create these frescoes, and hope to see it for myself someday.  The ceiling, which took more than 4 years to paint, includes 9 scenes from the book of Genesis and was unlike anything that have ever been done before.  He was celebrated for his use of perspective, the iridescent colors  and the way he captured the human form.  It was also noted that much of the painting held an air of sensuality.  Later in life, Michelangelo returned to the Sistene Chapel (some theories suggest he returned during his quest for salvation, as found himself guilty of many 'sins of the flesh') to paint a Fresco entitled "The Last Judgement".  Some critics found the naked saints to be offensive. Another artist was later hired to paint loin cloths over some of the figures exposed parts.  But, personally, I feel the images he managed to capture are breathtakingly beautiful.
          

My father played a huge part in my love of the arts, and even though whittling didn't stick, I am grateful he didn't stop there.  Thanks, Dad,  for the trips to the art museums, the opera, symphonies on the radio that filled the living room on Sundays, and for not pushing the whittling issue.  Like Michelangelo, I was able to explore the arts with just a bit of guidance from my father.

Lesson 1 - DaVinci - Bruce

I believe you'd have to be living in a cave somewhere to have never heard of Leonardo DaVinci. Although, I am pleased to report, even though I was already aware of him, I learned numerous things about this Renaissance Man by watching this assigned video.

The facts where, by far, the most interesting part of the film.  For instance, the origin of his name, DaVinci, literally means that he was born from the town of Vinci, in Tuscany, Italy.  I was also intrigued by the idea that he wrote in a 'mirrored' script handwriting.  I am a teacher by trade & have often witnessed my students perform this style at the young ages of 4-6 years old.  They are excited about learning to write & often experiment with different ways to write their name, including this 'mirrored image' style.  During Parent-Teacher conferences, I often get concerns from parents on this subject, as they assume it's a sign that their child might have dyslexia.  I assure them that this experimenting is just a  sign of a creative mind.  The case apparently holds true for the likes of Leonardo, as well.

Nearly as fun as the facts throughout the film, were the conjectures about Leonardo's life.  I was surprised to learn that Leonardo might have led a gay lifestyle (however, other history lessons have taught me that this practice was rather common in this era, even though it was considered a crime - punishable by death). And the fact that several of Leonardo's works could include self-portraits is interesting to ponder. Finally, it was refreshing to hear that he likely had a difficult time completing his projects - perhaps he had ADHD as well?  Alas, this is something I also witness as a teacher.  Perhaps all of my 'behaviorally challenged' students are future artists and/or master sculptors...

As for the film making itself, the scenes of Italian (& later, French) countrysides and cityscapes were quite breathtaking, and made fitting segues for this film about the beauty Leonardo brought to Europe in the late 15th & early 16th century.  The beauty of his works, like the Italian landscapes, have stood the test of time, as he is still regarded as one of the masters of creative thinking, to this day.

Unfortunately, even though the appreciation of Leonardo's art still exists, the condition of some of his works has deteriorated over the centuries.  "The Last Supper", painted for a monastery, so the monks could have something to look at in their dining room, has only 20% of the original painting left, despite ongoing restoration and precautions such as humidity control and even high tech air locks.  But the realistic details, perspective and the way the painting tells a story, make "The Last Supper" one of the most revered paintings ever created.  And, I'm sure that the subject matter has something to do with it's popularity as well.

Although he is also known for studying the architecture of the human body, exploring the mystery of flight and designing weapons for warfare, Leonardo's painting techniques, which he first developed under the instruction of his mentor, Verrocchio, were unlike any that had ever been seen in Italy.  Verrocchio is said to have retired from painting when he realized that Leonardo's talents had surpassed his own.  Leonardo used light and shadows and dissolved contours to capture an essence of his subjects that had never been done before.  His distinct style made it possible for a recent painting to be discovered during the time this film was made.  If historians and art restoration experts had not recognized these Leonardo-esque techniques, they may never uncovered this hidden gem.

Perhaps his most famous portrait, the "Mona Lisa", is a perfect example of his use of shading and light.  He mixed glazes on the skin portions of this painting, creating shadows and subtle highlights that are said to bring the painting to life.  Art Historian, Martin Kemp described this when he stated "She's uncanny.  It lives in a very extraordinary way.  This is... it sounds pretentious, but there's no other way of describing it.  The figure seems not just to be inert pigments on a surface, but seems to be living and breathing."
                                                 
I admire Leonardo DaVinci even more than I did before, if for nothing else, because he seems more 'real' to me, now that I have watched this video.  Perhaps he was a procrastinating, ADHD man with homosexual tendencies, but what he created left a mark on this world - unlike any artist before him or since.

Lesson 1 - Modern Marvels: Paint

The History Channel's documentary, "Modern Marvels: Paint" proved to be a fitting introductory video for this course. By uncovering the origins and learning the technology's role in manufacturing paint, a student (of life and of SXU) can truly begin to appreciate this medium - not only for what an artist can create with a brush, but how the paint on that brush came to be in the first place.  If this first video is any indicator, I think this online course is right up my alley...

As narrator, Max Raphael, points out, early in the film, "The world, in case you haven't noticed, is painted."  I felt the film did a great job of clarifying that point.  The examples shown, from cave paintings to satellites coated to withstand elements beyond the earth's atmosphere, provided a rainbow of colors on the film's palette.

I was impressed with the pigments that our ancestors discovered more than 30,000 years ago and realized it boils down to this: The resourcefulness and ingenuity of prehistoric man is the reason I can open up a can of paint in the color of "Sculptor's Clay" and roll it on the walls of my living room.  Is it too late to send a 'shout-out' to the cave people?  I feel like they at least deserve a 'hashtag'.

#cavepeoplerock

And for the record, my living room looks amazing*.

The most interesting part of the film for me, was the history of resin, or binding agents, that have been a part of paint over the centuries.  From animal fat, to eggs, to linseed oil, to latex, each innovation coincides with a specific historical time period.  As we evolved, so did the manufacturing of paint and, in turn, affected the styles and colors used by artists worldwide.

I likely learned more than I need to know about Titanium Dioxide (thank you, DuPont, for all you produce), but am thankful that the process to make it into the white base of our paints took the place of lead, which was thankfully banned in 1978 ('kudos' to the Egyptians here - the use of fermenting animal feces and vinegar to heat lead,and create the pure white pigment was ingenious).   Being  the owner of a 100+ yr old farmhouse, I am certain that many layers of this dangerous (& apparently tasty, but I'll take their word for that) lead paint lies within these walls.  I am grateful for alternatives to this toxic predecessor.  It is also comforting to know that chemists are continually working to reduce volatile solvents in paints, leaving less of an environmental impact on our good ole' planet.

Being a fan of the History Channel, I found the film both entertaining and educational.  The only images that didn't particularly keep my attention, were those of industrial or factory applications of paint, although I can certainly appreciate the importance of these items and the role they play in making my life easier.

I look forward to the other films that Professor Peck has in store for me.

*Home improvements brought to you courtesy of: