31 October 2010

Renaissance vs. Mannerism

High Renaissance art was realistic and the artists tried to create naturalistic works of art and something that you would see in real life. A shift from realistic artwork to more unrealistic artwork came with the transition from the High Renaissance to the Mannerism period. Michelangelo liked to depict people in really contorted and twisted positions in his later artwork, which is unrealistic of how people would ever really be positioned. He had an influence on Mannerism because of this unrealistic way of viewing the human body. Mannerism art is unrealistic and exaggerates certain features of the human body. The Madonna of the Long Neck shows how this style is unrealistic with the way the bodies are unproportionate. The woman's neck is longer than what would be considered realistic and proportional to the rest of her body. Her body, and the body of the baby especially, seem to be extra long. The length of the baby's torso, arms and legs do not seem to fit with his head and feet. Also, the baby looks really uncomfortable the way he is positioned and twisted in her lap. To me, this idea of creating artwork to be realistic or unrealistic seems to be the biggest difference between the High Renaissance and the Mannerism period.

30 October 2010

High Renaissance vs. Mannerism

Art during the High Renaissance is that which was focused on human beings and portraying them naturally. Artists during this time began to use linear perspective by making their creations look 3-Dimensional on a 2-Dimensional surface. They were focused on the content and context of what they were creating because they wanted their work to appear as natural and real to what they were trying to depict. One piece of work that we can see this effort to create a realistic look is Michelangelo's, David. For this piece Michelangelo thought that this sculpture was going to be placed above everyone who observed it, so when he created the hand he made it bigger than normal, so that when those who looked up at the sculpture would see the hand as of normal proportion to the body. The reason that Michelangelo created the hand like that was so the body would be proportional to the rest of the body, and so the sculpture would seem natural. This is opposite of how Mannerism art worked.
Mannerism art was not always proportional. We can identify Mannerism in the Madonna of Long Neck by Mary's long neck and extra wide hips. Jesus also looks very unrealistic and un-proportional. Jesus, painted on Mary's lap, is much larger looking than an infant. Mannerism pieces seemed to go over the top of what was typical. Artists of this time would take what was normal and expected and push the limits just a little further. For example, in the Madonna of Long Neck, there is an "angel" with much of her leg exposed, which was very revealing for that time.
Mannerism works seem to be a little more exaggerated with the human body and it's positions especially. Michelangelo's art work during the Renaissance time also began to exaggerate some of the human body (especially the muscles). It wasn't until the time of Mannerism though, that Michelangelo really exaggerated the muscles of the human body.

29 October 2010

Mannerism and High Renaissance

By looking at mannerism and high renaissance artwork we can see many differences and some similarities between the two. The high renaissance style is more natural looking with natural positions and when looking at the artwork it is very inviting and pleasant to look at. An example of high renaissance art would be Raphael's Mary with Jesus. Mary is very motherly and kind looking while Jesus is very baby-like even though he has a few more muscles than a normal baby would. This shows that while high renaissance art is very naturalistic, it is not always realistic. The mannerism style is very odd looking, with the people in uncomfortable postitions and the body parts are not proportional. When looking at the artwork it gives one an awkward feeling. Paramigianina's Madonna of the Long Neck shows the odd proportions with Madonna's head being small on a very long, thin neck. Her hips are very wide in comparison to her upper body. The baby is very lengthened seeming not baby-like at all. They are similar because both styles are usually on the same subject matter.

Mannerism vs. High Renaissance

Just from looking at the artwork, there is a clear difference between the High Renaissance style and the Mannerism style. The High Renaissance seems to prefer portraying the human body as naturally as possible. For example, Raphael's image of Mary with Jesus portrays them as looking natural, meaning that is what a mother and her child would look like if you saw them in real life. While the Mannerism style allows the artist to portray the body as they choose. Paramigianino's Madonna of the Long Neck is a prime example of the Mannerist style. Paramigianino lengthened the bodies of both Mary and her baby, causing them to seem almost in human. Mannerism also portrayed the body in contorted poses that would be awkward for a real person to pose in. Michelangelo's sculptures of Night and Day on the Tomb of Giuliani de' Medici show how the bodies were contorted into poses that seem unnatural.

28 October 2010

High Renaissance vs Mannerism

While looking at the Renaissance and Mannerism artwork, I can definitely notice some differences. In the High Renaissance, the artwork was highly praised for its naturalism and was very balanced and harmonious. The artists of this time period, worked very hard to make everything appear very natural, the way it would be found in the everyday world. Michelangelo even used optics for the big hands to appear a normal size in his work of David. He tried to represent every little detail and be anatomically correct, especially when the sculptures or paintings had people in odd positions. Mannerism art seems to focus more on emotions and the artistic effect rather than naturalism. The artists deliberately painted distorted positions in irrational spaces, sometimes the forms were elongated or even looked contorted. The anatomy was definitely not up to Michelangelo’s par. Whereas he was anatomically correct down to every last muscle, they used very abnormal anatomy. Mannerism also seems to use clashing colors.

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.

High Renaissance vs Mannerism

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.

Mannerism vs. Renaissance Art

Kayleigh.. well said!!

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.

High Renaissance/Mannerism

In Madonna of the Long Neck one can tell simply by looking at it that the artist has created his own reality and did not paint what he saw exactly. The colors also in Parmigianino's work are more vibrant. The way the Madonna's head is positioned gives her a regal pose but the child on her lap just plain looks freaky! On both the child and the Madonna the torso is elongated causing the child to look older than a child that would still not have hair. In reference to Michelangelo's later work and treatment of the body, the thighs are unnaturally large on the Madonna. Mannerist works also look more carefree and whimsical compared to Renaissance art.

27 October 2010

High Renaissance & Mannerism

High Renaissance art was very realistic, the goal of artist during this time was to create a naturalistic view of the human body. I also feel that during the time of the high renaissance brighter colors were used, in comparison to the Mannerism period where i feel the colors were much duller. Mannerism was NOT reality, although paintings, etc. were still "realistic" they were known for portraying bigger bodies and bodies that were disproporationate, for example longer necks and legs. I also noticed that the period of Mannerism paid attention to decoration more so then the High Renaissance,  jerwely and gems, etc. were portrayed more in the works of art.

Mannerism & High Renaissance

The art that was created during the High Renaissance focused on reviving and improving the Classical principals, creating a naturalistic view of the human body and the importance of an educated artist. Works such as David were meant to show the Classical image of the body and told a Classical story in a new way. Several art works, including School of Athens by Raphael and Venus of Urbino by Titian, presented the topic of depicting the nude human body in a naturalistic light. During this time, it was also important for artist to know what had come before them, so they could produce it better.

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.
High Renaissance and Mannerism

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.

Lisa Shoemaker

Michelangelo and the development of Mannerism

The powerpoint images we looked at during the end of class today (Wed.) are up on blackboard. Look at, in particular, the Madonna of the Long Neck and discuss its similarities and differences to Renaissance art. Do you see references to the later work of Michelangelo, especially his treatment of the body?

Art Then & Now

There are more differences when comparing Renaissance Art with Modern Art.

Renaissance Art was more concerned with secular life, and interest in humanism. Most of the artist from the Renaissance Era painted frescos or built sculptures from people from the Bible. In modern times, artist usually paint and build sculptures of what come to their mind or how they are feeling that day. During the Renaissance period artists began to explore the world and the human body while using the new perspective to reflect it realistically. In modern art, artists use shapes and blotches that too them look beautiful in an artistic way. Back in the Renaissance Era artists took their time to complete their work and the people praised them for that. In modern world, some artist may rush to complete the piece on the deadline. In class we talked about how knowledgeable students had to be about works of art in the Renaissance Era. For artists, that means they had to do even more research of the piece they were painting. For example Da Vinci, when he painted the Last Supper. He had to know his material before painting the picture. In Modern times, artist do not really have a reason to why they are painting that peice or do any research for that piece, they just want the beauty and the value.

25 October 2010

I am definitely not an expert in the field of art, however I think the status symbol of art is still the same as during the Renaissance. Artwork from respected artists is something that is expensive and to have the ability to pay for a piece of artwork shows a higher class standing. For example, when considering architecture a building with more artwork rather than a building made simply from concrete gives a feeling of higher importance. Also, take a stroll downtown in the Short North through the galleries. The paintings and artwork are very expensive and the ability to own this artwork would prove your high social class.
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

Contemporary art vs. Renaissance art

I think that it is somewhat difficult to compare the art of today, to the art of the renaissance. In my opinion, art of the renaissance set the standard and basics for what art should mean and even how it is made. I think that European art and artists during the renaissance are like the "founding fathers" of art and architecture. The artists of the renaissance brought to life different paintings by creating/discovering things like illusionism, shadowing, and linear perspective. These artists pushed the boundaries sometimes of what was acceptable and what was not. Art and architecture during the renaissance often represented a person's status and rank in society. For one to have a pictured painted or drawn of him or her meant that he or she were of a higher status in society. This is still somewhat equivalent of how it is today, only because it can sometimes be pricey. Although, in the United States it is not as difficult as it would have been to receive this treatment during renaissance times.

Architecture during the renaissance also represented a lot of different things for the culture and individually. For an individual to create or have created a large piece of work, often meant that that person had power. Today, buildings and architecture in the United States seem to more often be created for a particular city, rather than for that individual. Or at least the creator is not as well recognized as some of the emperors of the renaissance.

I do not feel that I am all that knowledgeable of art of this time in the United States as some people, but I also do not think that I am much different from the general public. I think that in the United States, art and architecture is not as widely know to the general population as it was during the renaissance. The art during the renaissance would very often have symbolic meanings behind them, whereas, today the art of the United States seems to fall short of how much art meant to those during the renaissance. I believe that art and architecture of the United States still has meaning and value behind it, but just not as much as art during the renaissance. Sometimes I feel that art during the renaissance is more real that contemporary art because artists long ago had less to work with, but yet they set such a high standard for those to follow after them. Artists like Leonard da Vinci will forever be known to most people, whereas, it would be very difficult for me to name a contemporary artist in the United States at this time. I do not have anything against contemporary artists, or think that they do not create good quality work, I just think that they are not as widely publicized as some artists like musicians.

Role of Art

Renaissance art will always stand alone in function and purpose. Of course it was a catalyst for artistic method and style. It was a period that provided the advancement that the art world had long needed. Paintings gained depth from the discovery of linear perspective and other visual cue techniques. Sculptures returned to a Roman naturalistic style, bringing more life to all the figures. And architecture moved from Gothic styles back to Romanesque, with rounded arcades and a more horizontal orientational. Overall, architecture was more simplified and restrained.

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

Role of art in the Renaissance vs. today

When I think about famous artists the first names that pop into my head are artists such as Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael. I honestly couldn't tell you the names of any famous artists in the United States today. But, in general, I would say that there are more differences than similarities between today's art and artists and the art and artists from the Renaissance period. I feel like when someone is very famous and renowned for a talent that they have, they will be well-known even by those who aren't familiar in that specific area. I am not familiar with the art in today's society, and in no way would I consider myself to be extremely knowledgeable in the subject of art throughout different time periods. But, I think that the fact that the artists from the Renaissance period are a lot more familiar to me than artists today says a lot about the changing roles that artists have in society.
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

Renaissance era vs U.S today

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.

Renaissance Art Differences

I think there are a lot of differences between Renaissance art and artists and art and artists now.
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.
The similarity that between Renaissance artists and today’s artists is that in class we talked about how Brunelleschi built The Dome based on the Pantheon and his time spent in Rome. I think that today when it comes to our buildings we tend to use past architecture and even art to create today’s arts. Another similarity is that having a work of art or has an artist paint a painting for you now and then was for those who are wealthy. Art is always changing and that’s a similarity between the two.
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.

Art then & now

After studying the changing artist in Renaissance times, I think there are few similarities and differences between them and the modern artists today.

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.

Art then and now

One of the things I think is extremely different between art then and art now is how much easier it has become to create art. Back then it took months/years to create a masterpiece and the amount of detail was extraordinary. For example Ghirlandaio took 30 months to create a piece of commissioned art, now it can still take that long for someone now a days to complete art but we now have the capability to complete art in much shorter a time period. We dont have to make our own pigments now and we also have cameras and digital photography and other such things that make art easier for all to do. Along with art being more accessible and easier to do another thing that has changed is our appreciation of art. Back then I do not think Jackson Pollock would be appreciated as an artist. Now we have many different styles that are appreciated and considered art that back in the Renaissance would have probably been looked down upon.

Art Then & Now

One thing that really struck me yesterday in class was the amount of time allotted for Domenico Ghirlandaio to paint the Adoration of the Magi...30 months! As a student of art, I can't imagine ever spending that much time on one painting. An artist today could create an entire body of art for an exhibition in that amount of time. We are living in an era where everything is convenient and fast and artists today don't have the patience to create works of art that they once did. I even question how often Ghirlandaio was working on this piece for it to take him that long, but when you look at the detail in the image and think of how in depth the processes of painting were it starts to make sense. Now that paints come readily available in tubes, who would purchase minerals and grind them into powders to create paints? I believe that artists now have so much more freedom of creativity than the Renaissance artists did because times have changed and there are things that are more acceptable in today's society; but also because Renaissance artists were mostly limited in what they could paint by who would commission them. At the same time, I think that Renaissance artists may have been much more knowledgeable of a variety of subjects like math, science, literature and religion.

21 October 2010

Art Then & Art Now

I unfortunately agree with Courtney on how artists are viewed in today’s society. I don’t think we value their hard work and effort towards artwork the way we did back in the Renaissance timeframe. Photography is a form of art, and I think we all take that for granted. Mostly everyone I know has a camera and an editing program on their computer where we can become the “best photographer” that we want to be with it. We don’t value the amazing talent some people have in taking beautiful pictures or painting a picture. We just want to buy a particular picture because it will match the interior d├ęcor of our house. It’s actually kind of sad.

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.

Art Then & Art Now

One of the major differences between Renaissance art and art today is that when artist where creating pieces of art they didn't have all of the tools and technology that our artist today have. For example having to paint only when the sun was up to provide light, we now can paint in the middle of the night. At the same time though i feel that this got the renaissance art more attention and even today it still gives us an admiration for the art that was done during that period because we think about how these artist were able to create such beautiful pieces of work with such limited resources. I think that renaissance art will always be appreciated and admired because it was done so perfectly even though there was millions of what we would consider today to be barriers. Now in the U.S and all over the world we have electricity, computers, cameras, etc. One positive of all these things is that it creates for more variety in our art today, but a negative is that is a since the process of creating certain types of art has been simplified compared to the time of the Renaissance.
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

Importance of Travel

I think that the purpose of traveling is to analyze the culture of another country. I think we become very narrow minded when we fail to appreciate the way other people live. Without travel we would know nothing more than our own town. Travel doesn't necessarily have to be to another country in order to have an effect on you. Just traveling to another state could give you a better appreciation of the landscape there. I have two entirely different opinions about traveling and how to get the most out of the experience. Part of me says that you need to see key landmarks of the area you are traveling. For example, Rome has many landmarks that anyone going to the area should make it a point to see. This website gives you insight into the most important landmarks in Rome such as the Colosseum, and Roman baths. http://library.thinkquest.org/26602/landmarks.htm Seeing these things allows you to understand how Rome had so much influence on the country. Look at the size of the Colosseum in the attached picture. To me it represents that the country had enough wealth to build something of that size and the man power to do it. Also, the stadium was used as a form of entertainment which gives insight to the kinds of things the Romans valued. I think that seeing the "tourist attractions" is important to learn about the history of the area you are traveling to. At the same time I think it is important to blend into your surroundings and throw yourself into the culture of that area. Spend a few days with no specific agenda, just ending up wherever you end up. Appreciate the landscape and small towns of the area. Traveling isn't just about seeing important artwork or buildings of our history. It is about learning how other people live their lives and what they value.

08 October 2010

Modern and Hip Rome

The New York Times has a travel feature called "36 hours in XXXX", and this week they feature Rome. Here's a video:


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.


Traveling is important for everyone because it helps us gain a more relevant understanding of history and events by actually being in a place where something important occurred. By being in the place, we have a deeper connection with the event and experts at hand who can teach us so much more by explaining to us what we are actually looking at, instead of showing us a picture of it. The best places to travel to are the places that you are most interested in. This can be different for everyone. When I was in 6th grade, my parents bought an RV and we (along with my younger sister) traveled around the United States, living in our RV, for nine months. Starting up in Maine, then traveling down along the East Coast, then straight up through the middle of the "corn states", through Canada and into Alaska for a few weeks. Then back down along the West Coast, Arizona, Texas, (walked into Mexico for an afternoon), Florida, and then straight back up to Ohio. We went to all sorts of National and State parks and my parents felt that it was very important for us to complete the "Junior Ranger" programs at every one. So much so that they bribed us with ice cream! To my parents, it was important that we got all of the facts and learned as much as possible at every stop. That also could have been because we were being homeschooled for the year. But regardless, because of this my "school" experience that year was so rich because I was able to see so much of the United States that my social studies classes could never have taught me.

When we were in Alaska, we stayed with my dad's cousin on Kodiak Island. He and his wife guide hunters, hikers, photographers, etc through the island mostly with the goal of seeing Kodiak grizzly bears. This is a link to their website, if anyone is interested in vacationing there!


I think that traveling is amongst the most incredible experiences one can have, and it is not something that everyone gets to do. So, anyone who has the privilege to be able to travel, whether a few hours away of half way around the world I would consider being very lucky. Traveling can help to make someone a well-rounded person. I feel like it helps a person be able to better understand those who are different from them and have a greater appreciation for cultures that seem unfamiliar. For me, hands on learning always seems to work the best and what better way to have a hands on experience than to travel to a certain country to learn about their culture and history. Anytime that a person travels, and it does not have to be far, I think that new experiences are exciting and when you stretch yourself outside your comfort zone to try to adapt and get along in a new and unfamiliar situation I think a lot of self growth takes place.

The best way to travel is to be curious but cautious. I think that humans by nature are curious beings and I think that traveling is just one form of curiosity. It is very interesting to see how other cultures and societies are and how people in other places in the world live their lives. Having an open mind and being curious about the places you are visiting and the things you are seeing is very important. But, it is also important when you are traveling to be safe. You should not be paranoid that something bad is going to happen, but just be cautious of the unfamiliar surroundings and do not venture off by yourself in an unfamiliar area.

Everyone is different and so everyone will have different ways that will make traveling more enjoyable for them. I think that the best places to travel to are places that someone would find to be meaningful to them and somewhere a person would be able to have a worthwhile experience. This place is not the same for any two people.

For me at least, I think that the overall goal of traveling is being able to come away having learned something, having a new appreciation for something, while also have had an enjoyable worthwhile experience at the same time. Some things are bound to go wrong and according to plan when you are traveling. With this in mind I think one of the best ways to achieve your goals while traveling is to not worry about the small stuff. If you have a list of everything you want to accomplish while your traveling, you might not get to do it all, which will leave you feeling disappointed. But, if you have a more open mind about things and just kind of go with the flow it might end up that you will get to experience something incredible that you did not even have on your to-do list in the first place.

This website is a list of the top 10 historical sites in the world. The Colosseum and the Forum both made the list, and I thought that was neat since we will be able to visit these places. Also, you can click on a link for each historical site and learn more about each one.

I chose this picture because we are going to get the chance to see The Colosseum while were in Italy, and also because it was part of the top 10 list from the website I found.


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.

This link takes you to the New York Times list of the 31 places to travel in 2010. It is very interesting because a lot of the places on the list I never would have thought about going to.

This picture is from my last trip to Europe when I got to visit Stonehenge. It was an amazing experience to see this in person.

07 October 2010


I think it’s extremely important to travel (even though I have not done too much traveling of my own) to gain a better understanding of what the world has to offer. So many people don’t leave where they come from because what they know is comfortable to them. For example, so many people from my small town just stay there forever and know nothing else. I feel like even traveling to Columbus from my small town I have grasped a better understanding of different people and cultures. There is no way to possibly reach every foreign destination we would like to in life, but traveling to as many places as we can help open our minds and hearts and may even change us for the better. We many oftentimes take our lives for granted, and traveling somewhere (that may be less off than we are) can help us appreciate our lives. I think the best way to travel is with a group of people, preferably smaller. I’m not much of a loaner and like to share experiences with people whom you can later talk about and recall the experience with. A smaller group allows you to not be so noticeable when you walk into restaurants, etc. and also allows you to visit specific places that everyone would like to see. I think that best places to travel to are really any places that you have an interest in. If you are interested in a town across the state, then it would be worth it for you travel there. When you have an interest in somewhere, whether it be for the artwork, the people, the food, the wine, the landscape, etc. it is definitely worth the traveling in my opinion. I think in order to get the best experience that you possibly can out of traveling, you need to keep an open mind and be respectful of the people and the culture. I also think that you need to be able to go with the flow, because not everything fits perfectly with your itineraries and some of the best experiences happen randomly by chance.

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.