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."