Questions? Comments? Observations?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Literary Works Online
Art Watch - NOLA.com
clustrmap
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(46)
-
▼
October
(12)
- The Renaissance
- Inferno Review Blog
- "That's right, fawn on him, like the silly bitch y...
- "Hell is-- other people!"
- Where Would YOU be in Hell?
- Symbolism & Allegory
- How many 4-year-olds could you take in a fight?
- Should Someone Start a Thread about the Inferno?
- Does love exist?
- Tristan and Iseult
- Greek vs. Romaneque Architecture & Art
- Top 3 Movies, Songs, and Books
-
▼
October
(12)
36 comments:
This picture is amazing
I have to write an essay about a work of art that has inspired me for college and this picture has definitely won the prize. I love it.
I believe the art in the renaissance is a great throwback to the greeks. David is a great example of improving and keeping to old styles. this makes art seem more like a choice than a linear progression.
i think that the people of the renaissance were trying very hard to separate themselves from their history especially the middle ages, but they lacked total ingenuity since they relied on the greeks to inspire much of their ideas and some of their. i also think that the renaissance could have been an even greater movement and even more progressive if the people then had more freedom of expression and if they did not feel compelled to obey the rules of the church and their rulers
Renaissance art amazes me. Weren't Renaissance artists the first to like, get all good and whatnot at like, paintings and stuff? Because the Greeks and Romans didn't really do any paintings that we know of, right? If that's true (can someone confirm that?), then it's even more amazing to me how the artists could just create a new style of artwork and make it so baaaaaalllllliiiiinnnn.
I agree with Dean that the Renaissance art is an improvement to the Greek art but I guess that experience comes with time so they were able to improve techniques as time went on. I also think it is a lot better than the medieval art we've been studying especially since all they were able to do was art related to religion. Now, at least some artists can paint pictures that aren't actually related to Christianity except that some of the figures look like the previous Christian figures. For example, in class we saw a painting that was depicting nymphs(I think) and Venus with Mercury. That painting is not of Jesus or Mary but I think Joel pointed out that Venus looked similar to Mary.
One thing that I have noticed is that there are periods where there was extreme naturalism, then a period of stylization and abstraction followed, and then a resurgence of naturalism occurs. Did anyone else see this pattern?...Or is this me being crazy?
It's always been my dream to have a pet penguin that wears sunglasses. Since that's really unlikely, this picture is the next best thing. Is there an actual statue like that?
I agree with Dean's statement that the renaissance is a great evolution to that of the Greek art. The renaissance seems to take church doctrine like David and Goliath and the depiction of the last supper and portray them in a manner that depicts ideal forms and more naturalistic depictions. The church was also, however,a limiting factor in that they controlled much of what was able to be created.
Renaissance artists were able to take art to levels the world hadn't seen since Roman times, and beyond - mainly, I think, because for the first time in about a thousand years there emerged places in Europe with a "culture" of art. That is, art was appreciated and encouraged for its own beauty, rather than just seen as a means to the end of the worship of god.
It's a lot easier to create art and express yourself when you're around others who are doing the same. In this way, the Renaissance brought about a sort of "golden age" of art.
I think that the real difference between the art of the Roman and Greek era and that of the Renaissance is that the classical forms of art were meant to honor the gods and present ideal forms while the renaissance wanted to portray parables and instances of the bible in a beautiful and somewhat romantic manner. The renaissance does not encourage people to reach the ideal form because God is the only ideal form.
I agree with steven, with god being the ideal form and with renaissance people not believing in humanism as much as the greeks, i think their art was limited to religious works.
Dean - you misspelled Stephen
Are there any secular pieces of renaissance art? (secular means non-religious, right?)
i agree with stephen's comment. i also like both types of art equally because i appreciate both forms and both functions. i think that i would like to look at greek art when i am in more of an academic mood and renaissance art when i am in more of a mood of wanting to be entertained or worship.
I really like DaVinci's paintings because he doesn't use all the gold in his art. Also, his people dont have halos... overall its more naturalistic.
I loved The Madonna of the Rocks. There was something surreal and dream-like about it, with the jagged rocks and light coming from the background. I also think the subtle painting of the angel's wings (blending in with the foliage and rocks) was ingenious.
I agree with Caroline's comment about the appeal of naturalistic painting and sculpture. The earlier depictions of religious figures were cartoony and hard to really appreciate. The three-dimensional aspect makes it much easier to relate to.
I think that most art focused on religion because the primary parton was the church [the merchant/middle class had not yet fully developed].
I find the fine-tuning of naturalism and idealism very interesting: the detail in hands of Michalangelo's "David" is simply stunning.
If you compare Michelangelo's Creation of Adam to his Creation of Eve, the backgrounds seem very similar. In both there is a cliff or rocky structure that slopes down to the right. Beyond that is a dark blue strip. God is always up on the right, looking down at his creation(s). Adam is laying down in both images with his right leg stretched out before the viewer.
I think that what we talked about in class regarding Michaelangelo's sisteen chapel was today was interesting regarding his emphasis on figures. Looking at the ceiling in the sisteen chapel from the ground would be different than how we looked at it in class, so it makes sense that he focused on figures rather than background.
Yes, also, the figures are the focal points, while the architectural painting is amazing, it is not the emphasis of the chapel. We talked about the tiny details Michelangelo went into, but he had to do that to make everything visible from the ground. If his painting was unclear then it would have been impossible to decipher the images from the ground.
Alot of us had trouble with over-exaggeration of human porportions in the Sistene Chapel. As was said, I beleive that it was done to make it visible from the ground.
Is the measure of all things shifting back to Man or is it still god?
In response to Aaron's comment, I still think that God is the measure of all things rather than human beings, however, there is certainly a transition in the portrayal of humans like in the statue of David, which goes back to the ideal human form. God is still perfection but there is an acknowledgement of human success.
I agree with nussdorf that we should not gripe over the forms on the cistine chapel because he had to over exaggerate to make the details visible. at that time he couldnt even conceive of a contraption that could magnify or take a picture of his work.And I think the throwback to greek humanism in David shows that the times called for better forms of humans.
Stephen, that's a really interesting thouhgt.
May I be so bold as to suggest: Is the Renaissance the first foray into the 'modern' idea of "God in search of Man"? This is a primarily modern, Jewish thought that we are not looking for god, but rather that god is looking for us, though our faith(s). I think this may be a reality because of Michalangelo's "Adam's Birth" where both Adam and god reach out to touch each other.
Nussdorf brings up a good point, but doesnt that make it seem like god isnt as omnipotent as he seems in this time period. God is still the figure of fear and I think him looking for us makes him look less superior
If we said this in class, I don't remember it. I think perhaps the most crucial difference between Venus of Urbino and a Playboy picture is the fact that Venus is a goddess. She is a mythological figure. Playboy models are not mythological figures--especially not goddesses.
I know I said this in class, but I think the main difference between a photo in Playboy and Venus of Urbino is that there's something exact about a photo than a painting.
Then this question arises: "is photography art?"
I personally believe that photography, overall, is art. But we enter again this eternal question: "is a Playboy magazine art?"
Does context separate Venus of Urbino from a Playboy? From what I can tell, the beautiful Venus is lying down naked behind a curtain. On the other side of the curtain are two maids who are fully clothed and not exactly ideal. Maybe this touches back to Greek thought, contrasting the perfect form to reality, with more of a focus on the perfect form?
I think that the two non ideal maids and the one naked women is more about who bought the painting. The artist is not dealing with greek ideals, but rather showing how much better the patron is than the other women in the world.
Venus is nude, not naked...
I like how the religious artwork of the Renaissance was not depicted as people with a "plate-like" halo over their face, even though that was seen in fra angleicos painting most of the art didnt have that, and those halos were one of the things that drove me crazy in the last art section!
I think the question of "But is it art?" is another very subjective one with no definitive answer, like "Does love exist?"
Look around the room you're in right now. Can you spot anything that doesn't involve some form of artistic design? Basically, anything that has been created by man can be called art.
So it turns out art is more than just half of Humanities class. We're all actually surrounded by art. Isn't that cool?
I think the Venus of Urbino was pornographic for its time. She's nude, but she knows she's naked, and she's comfortable in her own skin... kind of like a porn star? If a Renaissance man strolled up to the painting and looked at it, I think he would be *pleased*. Isn't that the point of pornography? And maybe that wasn't Titian's intent. Maybe he just wanted to show that she was unashamed and confident. She looks quite coy, and I feel like she wants to invite you into the painting and into her bed.
Renaissance art used to be my ultimate favorite. It also was my favorite period, but I'm not so sure now. I still find it to be absolutely spectacular. Perfecting painting technique and naturalism was no easy task.
I agree with Margaret and the others that a lot was accomplished in the Renaissance period. Techniques became advanced and the paintings looked very realistic. However, I don't think the Venus of Urbino can be considered porn because as brandon mentioned Titan was painting Venus the goddess as what he believed she'd look or as people would like to believe of themselves. I also agree with Caroline's comment. Because this is a painting, there probably was a story behind it.
Post a Comment