31 October 2010
30 October 2010
29 October 2010
28 October 2010
Parmigianino’s Madonna of the Long Neck really represents these interpretations. She has a neck that is so elongated and unrealistic to the natural body. Mary herself is huge, she is almost twice the size of the angels to her right. The baby, Jesus, is also quite large. If you look closely, and attempted to stand him up, he would be about half the size of Mary! He also is an a very awkward position on her lap, and appears as if he could fall at any moment. The colors all appear to be very dark, with much less background.
Mannerism art seems to be exaggerating the realistic view of humans, but in my opinion, Michelangelo’s later Renaissance works seem to exaggerate real human bodies in his own way. He maintains correct anatomy, but takes it to the extreme. He makes the men’s muscles too big and bulky, and even makes the girl appear to have masculine muscles as well, which was probably not the case with the women of that age.
Art during the high renaissance era was the rebirth of classical tradition which moved into Michelangelo’s mannerism where the artist was more focused on the form of the human body. Noticeably there was an increase in detail from making the muscles clearly defined on the body. Michelangelo had a fascination with the male body. This fascination was clearly shown through his works of art where the form of the male body was shown. Michelangelo's style even when displaying a woman’s figure, was a noticeably male form influence, like in the Sistine Chapel. In additions many of the positions of the figures were awkward and in the sense would be uncomfortable. Which seems to draw the attention of spectators more into the piece.
In the Madonna of the Long Neck, the title describes the work of art. Although there is still this naturalistic perspective about the piece, the body proportions are obviously exaggerated, from the long neck, hands, torso, and even the baby. The piece still uses linear perspective like artists in the renaissance used, making the audience feel as if they could step into the work. High renaissance was a foundation for a more expressive style of art like mannerism.
Renaissance art valued much of what we talked about in class, including naturalistic and illusionistic characteristics. Artists aimed to create what they observed, without exaggeration. Working to decieve the eye, artists played with the idea of optics in order to create illusions that would convey realistic works. An example of these illusions is the large hands that Michelangelo sculpted on David so that when viewed from the ground, the hands would appear in proportion with the rest of the body.
Mannerism appears to be less realistic. The people are more slender and their body parts are not in proportion. The artist is creating works based on the way that they want them portrayed, which seems to be more dramatic. The drama can be seen in the painting Modonna of the Long Neck. As the name implys, the woman has a long neck. The "baby" is also completely out of proportion. Michelangelo has influenced many of these works as well. He valued human anatomy and often sculpted/painted humans in contorted, uncomfortable positions, as we see in the sculptures on the Medici tomb. Body parts are elongated and exaggerated. Mannerist artists also bring more light and brightness into their works.
As Renaissance art progresses into Mannerism it seems as though the artist is beginning to gain more control over their own works. As exemplified through Michelangelo's works on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, artists did not always want to create works that were realistic.
27 October 2010
As the times changed so did the art work and after the High Renaissance came the movement known as Mannerism. This movement focused on elongated and disproportionate bodies, contortion the body into twisted positions and the value of technical expertise. The painting of Madonna of the Long Neck by Parmigianino is a perfect example of Mannerism art. Madonna and child are both depicted with suck disproportion that the audience wonders how the baby stays on her lap. The ladies that surround her as well have such elongated legs that they become a distraction.
During both movements Michelangelo was a working artist who really flowed into this change with his works. The Sistine Chapel is a great example of the values that the High Renaissance art possessed. As as artist he would have to be educated in religion, philosophy and what other artist before him did in order to create the images and stories from the Bible onto the ceiling. He was also so interested in the male nude body that he constantly tried to rework and recreate positions that the body could be presented in. As time went on he took this passion for the body and really pushed it into a whole new level during Mannerism. In his Night and Day sculptures he "beefs up" the body so that one can see all the muscles, puts the body into these twisted and unrealistic positions and elongated certain body parts so that they become disproportionate.
These two movements truly valued very different aspects of art and art making but both valued a sense of artistic expertise and knoweldge of other artist and historical and biblical events.
Looking at the two artworks of the Madonna of the Long Neck the main difference I picked out was that the woman was sitting up taller in the Mannerism work and in the one by Michelangelo the woman seems to be hunched over a bit.In the Parmigianino the woman is clearly pushing her neck up farther. The same situation with the pictures by Titian and Correggio. In the painting done by Titian, the woman is laying on the bed and then in the Correggio painting the woman is sitting more upright. Also, dealing with the same paintings, I noticed more people in the mannerism painting than in the high renaissance painting. Finally, the colors look to be brighter in the mannerism paintings than in the high renaissance ones. They use the same sorts of colors, but I think they are brighter.
The portraits done by Bronzino I thought looked more real and life like compared to the renaissance portraits. There is more detail and color in the mannerism portraits.
The similarities between the two paintings are again the same types of colors are used in the paintings. I can definitely see the influence by Michelangelo. In my opinion they both have the same feelings conveyed. When it comes to the treatment of the bodies I did not see as much of a muscular body type in the men in the pictures in the PowerPoint. In the mannerism paintings there was more clothing on people and the women looked to be painted the same or at least very similar to the high renaissance period.
25 October 2010
As for artists, I believe they are treated very differently from Renaissance artists. As many of you have already said I could not name a single current artist, however could pull out 3 or 4 names of Renaissance artists and not simply because I am taking the course. Their names are remembered after all these years, whereas present day artists struggle to get their names heard. I also believe that artists now have more say in the piece they are making. The contract we read in class was extremely strict and required the artist to pay up front for their supplies and if the buyer did not like the finished product they had the right to reject it and pay for nothing. I think now artists have more control in the artwork they are making.
24 October 2010
As for the role of Renaissance art, there are several. First and foremost, the architecture seemed more practical. It served a more general purpose. Paintings were more for a specific population, that is, usually a work commissioned by a family for their home or church. Artists did not paint just to sell or hang their works in a museum. Sculptures, however, were both for the populous and for specific persons/families. Statues were erected in public forums, like those in ancient Rome. But statues and other sculptures were also made for specific churches or households.
As for art in today's society, architecture is still very practical and mostly simplified. Architecture is hard to compare because we do not view it the same as art it was in the Renaissance. Our architecture is meant mostly to serve a purpose or function, not necessarily to decorate an area. However, in recent years there has been a resurgence in designing extravagant buildings, but mostly in cities like Hong Kong, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi. So the practice is not dead entirely, and perhaps its being revived.
Modern attitude towards paintings is mostly for artists to create works for others to buy. Not often are artists commissioned to do work. It's mostly a freelance trade, and each artists is hoping to be recognized for his/her talents by hanging their works in galleries. Most of the art that we use for personal collections, however, are art replicas, or prints of famous paintings. There is also a desire for what I like to call "feel good" art, which are replica paintings of artists like Thomas Kinkade. Much like van Meegeren's forgeries, there is aesthetic value(1), but the art is not worth anything. This is vastly different from the Renaissance art, which was original, and not only had aesthetic value but also value because of the artistic merit.
Sculptures are still used in similar ways, and viewed similarly as well. It's not uncommon for a city to commission a sculpture to honor a former president, other political figure, war heroes, or even local heroes. Public statues in modern era and the Renaissance served a very similar purpose. Abstract art, however, has emerged to be a another means of public art. The use of abstract art to decorate empty space in a forum was unheard of in the Renaissance, mostly because the technique wasn't around. But today we often find abstract art to be pleasing and appropriate to fill empty space. It accents our environment and serves similar purpose as the statues the modern and Renaissance era.
One major difference in art today from the Renaissance is the use of public art in general. It may not be completely recognizable to those who do not have the proper sensitivities to art, but public art is a major part the current art culture. Artists like Banksy use public art as a way to speak out against propaganda. Other artists like Maya Lin use it as a way to make a name, and like the use of statues, use it to honor war heroes . And then artists like Richard Sierra, who are world renowned, are commissioned to create public works because of their name.
Art still serves similar roles today, and it forever will as long as it is meant to be enjoyed and viewed by mass amounts of people. Artists do not want their works kept quiet. They are mostly proud of their abilities and recognition if the best thing for their careers. They want to create works that will garner income for them, after all, hasn't that always been the goal of artists. It may be something one loves to do, but anyone who has no career besides art needs it to be a source of income. Renaissance art stands alone in its purpose because of the change it brought to the art world. But as long as the public finds value in artistic ability, arts most fundamental purpose will always remain the same.
(1) I am not comparing Kinkade's artistic ability to Vermeer's, just the similarity that to some extent Kinkade has aesthetic value.
23 October 2010
I think that one of the biggest differences between artists from the Renaissance and artists today is the way people perceive them. A long time ago I feel like artists were praised for their work and treated like celebrities, and today that is not the case. Today I don't think there is as big of a demand for art, and the job market for artists isn't that extensive. I think that it is easier for people to be able to create artwork today and at a more efficient rate. But, even though this may be true I've taken art classes before, and drawing and painting are not as easy as some people think. It takes a very creative and talented person to be a good artist. In the time period of the Renaissance there were certain professions, like being an artist for example, and if a person was a talented enough artist, it most likely would have led to a very successful and famous career. But today people view other careers like singers, movie stars and professional athletes to be more worthy of fame. I do not necessarily agree with this outlook, but I do think that it is one of the biggest differences between the way people view art and artists in today's society and the way people viewed art and artists in the Renaissance.
Although some of us may enjoy certain arts such as painting, sculpting, or photography, it is not given the respect that it once was during time periods such as during Medieval and Renaissance Italy.
During these historical periods, art was a symbol of power and status. Only the middle and upper classes held positions that enabled them to commission and/or own works of art. Most of the art created during the medieval time period was purely religious oriented, and was therefore displayed particularly in churches, where the majority of people attended regularly. During the Renaissance, art began to transform into a more secular focus, with an emphasis on the idea of “the here and now” rather than the focus on religion. However, art remained a luxury of the middle and upper classes. Works of art could be interpreted different ways based on your educational background, but the thought was that in order to fully appreciate art, the viewer must be educated. The same idea applied to the artist as well. Artists were required to be well educated in many different subject areas such as theology and mythology. Overall, artists were regarded and intelligent, well-respected individuals. The works they created told stories and often had multiple story lines intertwined in them.
Today, artists are not as prevalent in society. Because art is not in my realm of study directly, I am not knowledgeable whatsoever in the area of contemporary art. Although I enjoy art and am interested in furthering my understanding of art, I simply do not have enough time to devote to this area. Society’s focus has shifted away from it’s emphasis on art for education’s sake and more toward art as form of marketing, or entertainment. Art is seen in museums, on billboards, and in advertisements all over the place. In this light, artists are not appreciated as they once were for their talents and innovative art forms.
It will be interesting as we travel to Italy to view these works we have discussed and think about the ways in which they impacted society then as compared to how art impacts society today.
22 October 2010
I think there are some similarities but more differences in comparing art during the Renaissance era and art today in the U.S. Renaissance art was a start to heading to more modern artwork with the use of illusionism and linear perspective. This shift in art is a huge influence on art today. Yet art today is so technologically advance. Today we have digital art that has been modified or edited by a computer/software program. Most art today is not just created by the artist itself but through technology advances has changed the approach. It use to take years for renaissance artist to actually finish their works of art, one reason being it took greater amount of time to import certain supplies needed. Today it can either be created on the computer at a fast pace or if actually using paints the supplies can be quickly shipped.
I feel also that art today is a lot broader in the messages artist try to portray. In the U.S we have the idea of free speech, yet during the Renaissance era artist were able to go against society’s principles but it wasn’t supported as it is today. I also believe that artist in Renaissance were more respected than in our society today and maybe that’s because people today can easily attain the resources rather than the renaissance artists.
During the Renaissance art was mostly for religious purposes and painted on the walls of buildings. So the paintings were in churches, telling a story from the bible, and including characters from religion. Now paintings and sculptures are of anything, whether it is shapes or lots of different colors. The paintings and sculptures were usuallly of people, including portraits and scenes. Art work was usually commissioned instead of painted just because the artist felt like it. It seems to me that the buildings were constructed to serve a purpose and be beautiful and interesting. I think buildings now are just built to serve a purpose and they are not particularly nice to look at.
I also think artists are not as well known and respected today as they were during the Renaissance. If you were an artist during the Renaissance then everyone in the community knew you and everyone had heard of your work. Now not everyone cares as much about art so the artists and artwork are not remembered as well.
I do think art from the Renaissance and today are similar in the fact that they are constantly changing and breaking boundaries.
There are more differences then similarities. One is that art is not appreciated as much now as it was during the Renaissance. Not saying that no one appreciates art, but I think that it’s not appreciated as much. During the Renaissance it was considered a gift and today people look at art as their property. Not many people think about how much work goes into making the artwork and can take it for granted. Also, there are differences in technology and what people can do with technology to make pieces of art. We have a different idea of what is considered art. Artists in the Renaissance were told precisely what to paint and if it wasn’t done the way the man in charge wanted it done they would pay less. Today it’s more of people paint what they want to paint and it’s either you like it or not.
One main similarity is the changing aspect of both types of artist. The artist's position in society was changing during the Renaissance. Artist became a part of a higher, more respectable class than before. Today the position of the artist is changing from someone who not only creates art but brings to the forefront ideas and criticism of the world around them through their art. Another similarity is that both artist types were pushing boundaries brought on by society. In the Renaissance the artist were branching out and beginning to chose their own subject matter and paint to their standards and choices. Today artist are pushing the boundaries of creativity and trying to find new ways to express old ideas.
In the Renaissance, the artists were creating art for the patron and sometimes could add their own artistic touch and display their talents, if the patron allowed. Many of the artist had to sign contracts and stick to the guidelines put down by the patron. This concept of art has completely changed for the artist today. Art now is produced because the artist has some concept or idea to get across to an audience, they are not bound by patrons but rather have the freedom to create art as they please. This is the biggest difference, artist then were restricted to patron subject matter, where now artist are restricted only through government policies and gallery standards. However, even then artist today can always find somewhere or someone to accept their art and ideas. Another big difference is how people during the time accept the art. During the Renaissance, artist were praised for their talent and skills, today artist are still recgonized for their talent but they are also judged on their ideas and how different the art is compared to other artist in their genre.
21 October 2010
The Renaissance art seemed to be valued more than the artwork today. In class, we talked about all the effort it took to build the Duomo of the Cathedral. They had to form fires for their lunches and ways to go to the bathroom. In today’s world, this wouldn’t be such a production. We would have lifts or build some sort of temporary elevator, or even put a porta potty up there, so everything would be convenient for them. They had to put so much time and effort forth, which I feel like workers today would slack on. Many buildings today seem to be built more for convenience or cost than for the beauty of the work itself. Workers are hired to do what the architect designed. They go to work, do what they are told, and don’t care as much about the quality of their work. In the Renaissance time, they wanted their work to be the best they could, and the artists wanted to prove themselves as worthy artists.
Also i think that today artist are not as appreciated as they were back then. I believe that our world is so stereotypical and superficial that we can't just enjoy a beautiful painting done in water color. I think that today we look at art, classical forms of art and we aren't impressed. The type of artist that we treasure are musical artist or graphic design for example. We aren't in awe of the simple art, we need something created with technology to get our blood flowing and that's disappointing. Artist of classic work I don't believe are as high in society today as they were in the renaissance because what they did then was a true gift, a very unique thing that was of great value. Today i feel like anyone can become an artist, in some sense so the trade isn't as valuable anymore.
11 October 2010
This picture is from Jamaica when I went there last year :)
I think its really important to travel we get to embrace different cultures. We also will see famous sites that you may have seen thousands of times on pictures and on TV or the Internet but its even better when you see it in person. To discover something with all your senses is striking. Also, to experience the different cultures isn't something that can be done from home. Even to meet foreigners in your own country isn't really enough to give a true understanding of their culture. It is only when you visit the country and culture and immerse yourself in it that it really makes sense. The best way to travel within the country is with a slow moving object just so i can experience everything within the country.I think we should travel by train or car.
Train to see the countryside and car to get to our destination faster.
http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/city-guides/ here is a link to National Geographic which is places of a lifetime.
10 October 2010
08 October 2010
And here's the associated story:
All of these places look fantastic. We'll try to see if we have time to get to them as a group, but if not, there's some time on the Sunday before we leave when you might be able to check some of these places out.
It is important to travel because people should experience the world and all it has to offer. Traveling makes for a well rounded person and for a life full of rich experiences. When you travel you experience so many new ideas and places that it can completely change your view of the world. The people you meet when you travel are also essential to the travel experience. I think the best way to travel is in a small group or with just one other person. If a group it too big then you can miss out on the natural interactions of the people and place. The best place to travel is everywhere, everywhere in the world has something to offer. My favorite place to travel so far is France, I absolutely love the culture and the people. My next goal is to travel to New Zealand, it looks beautiful there. People should travel with an open mind, a sense of adventure, and a willingness to change for a lot of time travel plans do not go as planned and if you cannot adapt then traveling becomes stressful instead of fun. Everyone has different goals for traveling, some want to relax on vacation and some want to see the sights so it is hard to say exactly what to do while traveling. My suggestion is to have fun doing what ever it is that you are traveling for in the first place. I would definitely say that where ever you travel to make sure you experience some of the culture.
07 October 2010
This website is pretty interesting and informative. You can find very helpful information, from travel guidance, current events, and the 10 places to travel before they're gone! It also has some really silly information on it like the ugliest hotels, the most boring cities to visit, and which countries have the most gorgeous women.
This is just a random picture of the beach, and it is one of my absolute favorite places to travel to. When I go to the beach I seem to embrace my surroundings and appreciate everything more (probably because we don't have something like them around here). When I have gone to the Bahamas, I had to embrace the culture of the people of the island and I had to respect them just as I feel you should do anytime you travel somewhere new.