Dr Johnson sent this article around a few weeks back. Here's a link to it. Maybe we'll get a chance to see this Giotto crucifix in Florence!
http://gu.com/p/2kttc
Showing posts with label renaissance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label renaissance. Show all posts
20 November 2010
27 October 2010
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.
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.
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.
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.
art-Melissa
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
