Find drawings by two artists who work in contrasting ways from tight, rigorous work to a more sketchy, expressive style and make notes in your learning log.
Got idea to look at John Ruskin. Obviously tight and rigorous work.
I’ve been reading Alain de Botton’s ‘The Art of Travel‘ over the past couple of weeks. It’s one of the most dazzlingly thought-provoking books I’ve come across in a long time; every page seems to contain a striking new idea which, like candles at the Holy Saturday liturgy, set alight further ideas in the richest procession. Towards the end of the book he writes about “possessing beauty” – how we hold on to things which have attracted us in our travels, and he draws on the writings of John Ruskin for some illuminating ideas.
“The art of drawing [...] is of more real importance to the human race than that of writing”, writes the great Victorian gentleman. Not because he wants everyone to become an artist, which he admits would be impossible, but because drawing teaches us to notice rather than merely to look. De Botton makes the observation that when we want to draw something we have to look at it for ten minutes at least. Point made: when did we last stand in front of something beautiful for that long and really examine it? I was sitting with a magnificent view of Prague’s old city as I read that, and I tried looking intensely at the elegant buildings outside the window. I just couldn’t manage it for more than about 30 seconds without my mind beginning to wander or lose focus. If I’d been sketching it with pencil and pad it would have been a different story.
I then went on to think about a musical equivalent of this, because music exists only in a passing of time, and races past us like the mid-19th century trains Ruskin so hated. It is utterly non-fixed, and to focus on one moment is to destroy the whole. It is a forest which we have to pass through, not a single tree which we can contemplate or capture. But if hearing and seeing beauty have different timetables they both require a sort of repetition in order to be fully appreciated: music needs to be heard many times; and the visual world needs multiple, if consecutive seconds of looking. Perhaps it is only in such repetition that we can hold on to beauty in the end.
How to kéep—is there ány any, is there none such, nowhere known some, bow or brooch or braid or brace, láce, latch or catch or key to keep
Back beauty, keep it, beauty, beauty, beauty, … from vanishing away?
Gerard Manley Hopkins hints at this repetition literally in the lines above from his ecstatic poem, ‘The Leaden Echo and the Golden Echo‘; but by the end he (the Jesuit priest) suggests a further step:
Give beauty back, beauty, beauty, beauty, back to God, beauty’s self and beauty’s giver.
[...]
Oh then weary then why
When the thing we freely fórfeit is kept with fonder a care,
Fonder a care kept than we could have kept it, kept
Far with fonder a care (and we, we should have lost it) finer, fonder
A care kept.—Where kept? Do but tell us where kept, where.—
Yonder.—What high as that! We follow, now we follow.—Yonder, yes yonder, yonder,
Yonder.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/files/2010/03/John-Ruskin-watercolour-of-St.-Marks-Venice.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100007158/beauty-beauty-beauty/&usg=__FhE_kIrNtwj0JL1mSw3hZo3WHdA=&h=500&w=339&sz=154&hl=en&start=19&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=M8dPrGt6UX1HbM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=88&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJohn%2BRuskin%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26tbs%3Disch:1
So I choose two Russian artists: Shishkin and Vrubel.
Ivan Ivanovich Shishkin (Russian: Ива́н Ива́нович Ши́шкин; 25 January 1832 – 20 March 1898) was a Russian landscape painter closely associated with the Peredvizhniki movement.
For some time, Shishkin lived and worked in Switzerland and Germany on scholarship from the St. Petersburg Imperial Academy of Arts. On his return to Saint Petersburg, he became a member of the Circle of the Itinerants and of the Society of Russian Watercolorists. He also took part in exhibitions at the Academy of Arts, the All Russian Exhibition in Moscow (1882), the Nizhniy Novgorod (1896), and the World Fairs (Paris, 1867 and 1878, and Vienna, 1873). Shishkin’s painting method was based on analytical studies of nature. He became famous for his forest landscapes, and was also an outstanding draftsman and a printmaker.
Ivan Shishkin owned a dacha in Vyra, south of St. Petersburg. There he painted some of his finest landscapes. His works are notable for poetic depiction of seasons in the woods, wild nature, animals and birds. He died in 1898, in St. Petersburg, Russia, while working on his new painting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Shishkin
From book Great Artists.Ivan Shishkin.Volume 9
Mikhail Aleksandrovich Vrubel (Russian: Михаи́л Алекса́ндрович Вру́бель; March 17, 1856 – April 14, 1910, all n.s.) is usually regarded amongst the greatest Russian painters of the Symbolist movement. In reality, he deliberately stood aloof from contemporary art trends, so that the origin of his unusual manner should be sought in the Late Byzantine and Early Renaissance painting.
// <
Vrubel was born in Omsk, Russia, into a military lawyer's family. His mother died when he was three years old. And though he graduated from the Faculty of Law at St Petersburg University in 1880, his father had recognized his talent for art and had made sure to provide, through numerous tutors, what proved to be a sporadic education in the subject. The next year he entered the Imperial Academy of Arts, where he studied under direction of Pavel Chistyakov. Even in his earliest works, he exhibited striking talent for drawing and a highly idiosyncratic outlook. Although he still relished academic monumentality, he would later develop a penchant for fragmentary composition and an "unfinished touch".
In 1884, he was summoned to replace the lost 12th-century murals and mosaics in the St. Cyril's Church of Kiev with the new ones. In order to execute this commission, he went to Venice to study the medieval Christian art. It was here that, in the words of an art historian, "his palette acquired new strong saturated tones resembling the iridescent play of precious stones". Most of his works painted in Venice have been lost, because the artist was more interested in creative process than in promoting his artwork.
Demon Seated in a Garden, 1890
In 1886, he returned to Kiev, where he submitted some monumental designs to the newly-built St Volodymir Cathedral. The jury, however, failed to appreciate the striking novelty of his works, and they were rejected. At that period, he executed some delightful illustrations for Hamlet and Anna Karenina which had little in common with his later dark meditations on the Demon and Prophet themes.
In 1905 he created the mosaics on the hotel "Metropol" in Moscow, the centre piece of the facade overlooking Teatralnaya Ploschad is taken by the mosaic panel, 'Princess Gryoza' (Princess of Dream).
While in Kiev, Vrubel started painting sketches and watercolours illustrating the Demon, a long Romantic poem by Mikhail Lermontov. The poem described the carnal passion of "an eternal nihilistic spirit" to a Georgian girl Tamara. At that period Vrubel developed a keen interest in Oriental arts, and particularly Persian carpets, and even attempted to imitate their texture in his paintings.
In 1890, Vrubel moved to Moscow where he could best follow the burgeoning innovations and trends in art. Like other artists associated with the Art Nouveau, he excelled not only in painting but also in applied arts, such as ceramics, majolics, and stained glass. He also produced architectural masks, stage sets, and costumes.
It is the large painting of Seated Demon (1890) that brought notoriety to Vrubel. Most conservative critics accused him of "wild ugliness", whereas the art patron Savva Mamontov praised the Demon series as "fascinating symphonies of a genius" and commissioned Vrubel to paint decorations for his private opera and mansions of his friends. Unfortunately the Demon, like other Vrubel's works, doesn't look as it did when it was painted, as the artist added bronze powder to his oils in order to achieve particularly luminous, glistening effects.
In 1896, he fell in love with the famous opera singer Nadezhda Zabela. Half a year later they married and settled in Moscow, where Zabela was invited by Mamontov to perform in his private opera theatre. While in Moscow, Vrubel designed stage sets and costumes for his wife, who sang the parts of the Snow Maiden, the Swan Princess, and Princess Volkhova in Rimsky-Korsakov's operas. Falling under the spell of Russian fairy tales, he executed some of his most acclaimed pieces, including Pan (1899), The Swan Princess (1900), and Lilacs (1900).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Vrubel
From book Great artists Vrubel volume 33
I found this article fascinating .I found it in a Word document whilest doing research on google. Should we do criticism like this?
Got idea to look at John Ruskin. Obviously tight and rigorous work.
I’ve been reading Alain de Botton’s ‘The Art of Travel‘ over the past couple of weeks. It’s one of the most dazzlingly thought-provoking books I’ve come across in a long time; every page seems to contain a striking new idea which, like candles at the Holy Saturday liturgy, set alight further ideas in the richest procession. Towards the end of the book he writes about “possessing beauty” – how we hold on to things which have attracted us in our travels, and he draws on the writings of John Ruskin for some illuminating ideas.
John Ruskin: watercolour of St. Mark’s, Venice
I then went on to think about a musical equivalent of this, because music exists only in a passing of time, and races past us like the mid-19th century trains Ruskin so hated. It is utterly non-fixed, and to focus on one moment is to destroy the whole. It is a forest which we have to pass through, not a single tree which we can contemplate or capture. But if hearing and seeing beauty have different timetables they both require a sort of repetition in order to be fully appreciated: music needs to be heard many times; and the visual world needs multiple, if consecutive seconds of looking. Perhaps it is only in such repetition that we can hold on to beauty in the end.
How to kéep—is there ány any, is there none such, nowhere known some, bow or brooch or braid or brace, láce, latch or catch or key to keep
Back beauty, keep it, beauty, beauty, beauty, … from vanishing away?
Gerard Manley Hopkins hints at this repetition literally in the lines above from his ecstatic poem, ‘The Leaden Echo and the Golden Echo‘; but by the end he (the Jesuit priest) suggests a further step:
Give beauty back, beauty, beauty, beauty, back to God, beauty’s self and beauty’s giver.
[...]
Oh then weary then why
When the thing we freely fórfeit is kept with fonder a care,
Fonder a care kept than we could have kept it, kept
Far with fonder a care (and we, we should have lost it) finer, fonder
A care kept.—Where kept? Do but tell us where kept, where.—
Yonder.—What high as that! We follow, now we follow.—Yonder, yes yonder, yonder,
Yonder.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/files/2010/03/John-Ruskin-watercolour-of-St.-Marks-Venice.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100007158/beauty-beauty-beauty/&usg=__FhE_kIrNtwj0JL1mSw3hZo3WHdA=&h=500&w=339&sz=154&hl=en&start=19&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=M8dPrGt6UX1HbM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=88&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJohn%2BRuskin%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26tbs%3Disch:1
So I choose two Russian artists: Shishkin and Vrubel.
Ivan Ivanovich Shishkin (Russian: Ива́н Ива́нович Ши́шкин; 25 January 1832 – 20 March 1898) was a Russian landscape painter closely associated with the Peredvizhniki movement.
Life
Shishkin was born in Yelabuga of Vyatka Governorate (today Republic of Tatarstan), and graduated from the Kazan gymnasium. Then he studied at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture for 4 years, attended the Saint Petersburg Imperial Academy of Arts from 1856 to 1860,which he graduated with the highest honours and a gold medal. He received the Imperial scholarship for his further studies in Europe. Five years later Shishkin became a member of the Imperial Academy in St. Petersburg and was professor of painting from 1873 to 1898. At the same time, Shishkin headed the landscape painting class at the Highest Art School in St. Petersburg.For some time, Shishkin lived and worked in Switzerland and Germany on scholarship from the St. Petersburg Imperial Academy of Arts. On his return to Saint Petersburg, he became a member of the Circle of the Itinerants and of the Society of Russian Watercolorists. He also took part in exhibitions at the Academy of Arts, the All Russian Exhibition in Moscow (1882), the Nizhniy Novgorod (1896), and the World Fairs (Paris, 1867 and 1878, and Vienna, 1873). Shishkin’s painting method was based on analytical studies of nature. He became famous for his forest landscapes, and was also an outstanding draftsman and a printmaker.
Ivan Shishkin owned a dacha in Vyra, south of St. Petersburg. There he painted some of his finest landscapes. His works are notable for poetic depiction of seasons in the woods, wild nature, animals and birds. He died in 1898, in St. Petersburg, Russia, while working on his new painting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Shishkin
From book Great Artists.Ivan Shishkin.Volume 9Mikhail Aleksandrovich Vrubel (Russian: Михаи́л Алекса́ндрович Вру́бель; March 17, 1856 – April 14, 1910, all n.s.) is usually regarded amongst the greatest Russian painters of the Symbolist movement. In reality, he deliberately stood aloof from contemporary art trends, so that the origin of his unusual manner should be sought in the Late Byzantine and Early Renaissance painting.
// <
In 1884, he was summoned to replace the lost 12th-century murals and mosaics in the St. Cyril's Church of Kiev with the new ones. In order to execute this commission, he went to Venice to study the medieval Christian art. It was here that, in the words of an art historian, "his palette acquired new strong saturated tones resembling the iridescent play of precious stones". Most of his works painted in Venice have been lost, because the artist was more interested in creative process than in promoting his artwork.
In 1905 he created the mosaics on the hotel "Metropol" in Moscow, the centre piece of the facade overlooking Teatralnaya Ploschad is taken by the mosaic panel, 'Princess Gryoza' (Princess of Dream).
Controversial fame
In 1890, Vrubel moved to Moscow where he could best follow the burgeoning innovations and trends in art. Like other artists associated with the Art Nouveau, he excelled not only in painting but also in applied arts, such as ceramics, majolics, and stained glass. He also produced architectural masks, stage sets, and costumes.
In 1896, he fell in love with the famous opera singer Nadezhda Zabela. Half a year later they married and settled in Moscow, where Zabela was invited by Mamontov to perform in his private opera theatre. While in Moscow, Vrubel designed stage sets and costumes for his wife, who sang the parts of the Snow Maiden, the Swan Princess, and Princess Volkhova in Rimsky-Korsakov's operas. Falling under the spell of Russian fairy tales, he executed some of his most acclaimed pieces, including Pan (1899), The Swan Princess (1900), and Lilacs (1900).
Decline
In 1901, Vrubel returned to the demonic themes in the large canvas Demon Downcast. In order to astound the public with underlying spiritual message, he repeatedly repainted the demon's ominous face, even after the painting had been exhibited to the overwhelmed audience. At the end he had a severe nervous breakdown and was hospitalized in a mental clinic. Vrubel's mental illness was brought on or complicated by tertiary syphilis.[1] While there, he painted a mystical Pearl Oyster (1904) and striking variations on the themes of Pushkin‘s poem The Prophet. In 1906, overpowered by mental disease and approaching blindness, he gave up painting.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Vrubel
From book Great artists Vrubel volume 33I found this article fascinating .I found it in a Word document whilest doing research on google. Should we do criticism like this?
FirstPaper Assignment, ARH 3610, American Art, Prof. Eric Segal Fall 2008
Due: Fri., September 26, 5pm, week 5
Visit the Cummer Museum of Art (http://www.cummer.org/, closed Monday, free w/student ID on Tuesdays 4 – 9 p.m. and Tues-Fri, 1:30 – 4:00 PM) and select a work on which to write a 3-4 page visual analysis. For help with any aspect of preparing the paper (formulating your topic, the mechanics of writing and the final manuscript form), please do not hesitate to see me. It will also be useful to look at Sylvan Barnet’s Short Guide to Writing about Art (on reserve at the Art Library) which includes, in chapter 2, advice on questions to ask yourself in looking at a work of art as well as suggestions for writing a visual (or formal) analysis, as well as examples.
The Works (CHOOSE ONE)
Gilbert Stuart, Samuel Williams, Esq. 1808; Thomas Sully, Captain Samuel Worthington Dewey, 1834; John Neagle, The Dickson Brothers, c. 1840. Benjamin West, The Honorable Mrs. Shute Barrington; 1808. John Frederick Kensett, Marine View of Beacon Rock, Newport Harbor, 1864.
OVERVIEW: The paper you will write for this assignment is a visual analysis of a reproduction of a work of art. It is to be three to four pages (750-1000 words) in length. Below you will find details on how to go about preparing to write this paper as well as guidelines for the paper itself. Keep in mind that this assignment emphasizes looking. Give yourself plenty of time well in advance of writing to examine your painting carefully. You will want to look hard at the image, to think about it, to return to it with questions you discover in the course of pondering other painting, and to look again. Feel free to discuss the painting with other students. Bring a notebook with you and take notes. As an aid to looking, sketch the image (even if drawing is not your strength). Look at other images and mentally compare these as a means to draw out additional aspects of your painting. Now you may begin to write . . . perhaps returning yet again to the painting!
This is not a research paper. Your paper will be founded upon evidence you derive from visual examination. It will be based in the first instance upon your description of the painting. However, this task will require that you go a step further bringing your intellect and understanding (although not your opinions and feelings) to the image in order to explore visual meaning in the work. Your more-or-less objective description (no description, after all, can truly be objective) will serve as a basis then for an interpretation of what and how the painting means.
BEGINNING: Examine the work very carefully. Take notes about what you see. These may be words, phrases, or ideas. You might also try to describe the image to yourself (or a friend), a process which will help you to identify aspects otherwise overlooked. At this point in your work, you need not worry about getting it right. Rather, during this process, keep an open mind and try different approaches to see what helps you to discover the most in the images.
You are undertaking a visual analysis (an analysis which examines aspects of which the image is composed). Part of the task is to recognize what you can determine about the kinds of artistic choices that were made with regards to inclusion, omission, and arrangement. So ask yourself a variety of questions about the work. Such questions may address, but are not limited to, the following (not all questions are relevant to every image):
Consider the subject and genre. What does it represent? Is there a narrative behind the image? Is it historical, fantastic, legendary, mythic, symbolic, religious? If figures are depicted, are they situated in a real, ideal, or conventionalized environment?
Take note of the painting as an object: Its size (if known) and proportions. What is it made of: wood, canvas, cardboard, paper, etc.? What is the medium: oil, tempera, watercolor, pastel, etc.? How is paint applied; thick, thin, strokes, layers, transparent or opaque?
Figures, trees, architecture or other elements: how would you characterize the artist’s treatment of these forms and their relationships to other forms? Are they static or mobile? Are these forms treated realistically, or do they tend to emphasize expressive content?
Setting and space: relationship between figures and their setting; define the character of the space itself (flat, infinite, dramatic, calm, interior, exterior, illusionistic, anti-illusionistic). How does the space affect the subject and its presentation to the viewer? Does the artist use light or effects of weather for expressive ends?
Composition: look at the arrangement of lines, masses, colors, the use or absence of symmetry or balance, the dominance or interplay of certain directions or shapes (horizontals, diagonals, curves, etc.), use of viewpoints; how does the arrangement of forms move the viewer through or the eye over the image (giving information in a particular order or hierarchy; creating a motion-filled or stilled effect). Is the composition simple or complex, highly ordered or casual, harmonious or jarring? Think about how the orientation and size of the canvas (vertical/horizontal) affects the composition, and contributes to the meanings of the painting. How does the composition structure the relationships between the figures or between figure and ground or space?
Brushwork and quality of line: smooth, sketchy, visible or invisible, delineating, descriptive, expressive of emotion or the presence of the artist, technical virtuosity, controlled, fluid, thick or thin, linear (emphasizing contours and the edges) or painterly (building form from color or tone); how it compliments or emphasizes the movement or stasis of the scene.
Color: rich, bright, cool, descriptive of the observed object or artificial, arbitrary, decorative, etc.
Light: how and to what extent does the artist render light and shadow? can you tell where the light comes from? Is the range of light and shadow narrow or broad? What is the function of shadow (clarifying/obscuring form, emphasizing mood, etc.)?
Relationship to the viewer: are figures/objects placed close to the viewer or kept at a distance or made inaccessible; do figures look out and engage the viewer or are their attentions held within the frame of the picture; is there an assumed viewpoint and visual progression, is the viewer left to wander; how much or little is left for the viewer to formulate.
Note: Your paper does not have to mention each-and-every-one of these elements, but you should think about them all.
FORMULATE A THESIS: Once you have thought through these pictorial matters, formulate an argument about the painting which addresses the following:
What kinds of messages does this painting convey through combined style and subject matter? Consider whether such messages concern aesthetic problems, philosophical ideas, psychological states, social relations, politics, religion, cultural tradition, ethnic stereotyping, etc. But remember that you are primarily trying to draw conclusions from the images rather than making the images fit conclusions that you bring to them.
Write a draft of your essay. Then go back and rewrite again (and again) until your paper says what you wish it to say in a clear and direct manner. Read it aloud to yourself or a friend. Does it sound right?
This can be one of the most challenging, exciting and pleasurable parts of studying art history at the college level, so enjoy the process of developing and explaining your own ideas.
WHEN I READ your papers, I will consider the following: How well have you used your eyes to analyze the piece? How well do your written ideas express or characterize the object(s)? How successfully have you organized and written your paper? How well have you explored the way that formal elements and arrangements give meaning. What original insights — that is, original to you if not absolutely new — have you uncovered?
FORMAT
□ Typed, double-spaced, one-inch margins.
□ Number the pages (if your word processor makes this difficult, hand-write page numbers).
□ No folders, binders or covers. Please do staple.
□ No title page necessary (but do formulate an interesting title).
Note: Research is discouraged for this first paper. If you do have occasion to make reference to relevant information about the work’s historical context, this will be supplemental to your primary discussion of formal elements of the images. Further, if you choose to consult and use information from any books, journal articles, web sites (with great caution!), etc, you must cite your sources using a standard footnote format. If you are uncertain about what to cite or about the format for doing so, see a standard reference guide such as one of the following (on reserve at ARTS): Sylvan Barnet, A Short Guide to Writing About Art (inc. section “Acknowledging Sources”) or Kate L. Turabian, Manual for Writers for Term Paper, Theses, and Dissertation. If you use something learned from a museum label, cite it as: Wall text, Cummer Museum of Art, 2008.
Shishkin.
I remember when I was child that I spent a lot of time looking at a painting that we had on the wall. It was reproduction of “Three bears in the forest” by Shishkin. You can spend hours looking and still find new details, such as mushrooms or a fox running after a duck, the details were so fasinating as though somebody actually drew everything in pen and ink not in oil. You actually can recognise the sorts of trees that he painted. The atmosphere of the paintings of Shishkin is always bright and poetic, never has depressive colours, even in the most hard times when his wife and son died and, after one year of marriage, his second wife
died as well.
died as well.
I like his harmony between light and colour. I love his poetic vision of nature: he saw what a lot of people have seen before, but nobody before him so honestly and openly showed their love for their land and nature.
Vrubel.
Firstly, what attracted me to his painting was the mysterious, heroic and tragic atmosphere; highly decorative and powerful brush strokes. I see his intellect behind each drawing or painting. His life has a parallel with Van Gogh; and even when he became famous, he was not in a condition to realise or enjoy it.
He is one of my favorite artists and I like look at his pictures more than actually writing about them or analysing them. It is always hard to analyse emotion.
No comments:
Post a Comment