Me too. He seemed so versatile in his artistic expression, with paintings and sculptures. His "David" was incredibly naturalistic (especially his hand, with the veins and the knuckles). The Sistine chapel also took a lot of attention to detail with the ignudi perching on fake archictecture.
I think Jan Van Eyck's painting of the Arnolfini wedding is interesting. I'm not sure I would say that I like it, though. It's cool that Eyck wrote "Jan Van Eyck was here" on the back wall. Seemingly egotistical, but cool nonetheless. It reminds me of Michelangelo signing his Pieta or Gislibertus his Last Judgment. The guy's eyes creep me out, though. It's like he's morphing into a fish or something. The fold in his chin is like the formation of a gill.
I prefer the southern renaissance much more than the northern renaissance. The art work seemed more bright and colorful and certain pieces like the van eyck pieces and "the ambassadors" seem dark to me for some reason, but the dark pieces (color wise) of the southern renaissance like "madonna on the rocks" seems much more peaceful and calm. So i just like the southern renaissance artwork more.
Well...I like how some of the paintings of the Northern Renaissance represent every day settings, like "Marriage of Giovanni and Giovanna" and "Venus of Urbino". However, I freaking HATE the unusual paintings like "Garden of Earthly Delights" and the one about St. Anthony's with the odd bird creature. But I'm kind of opposite from Nicholas in that I liked the symbolism in "The Ambassadors".
Yes! I definitely agree with you on "The Garden of Earthly Delights." The third panel is obviously grotesque, but the middle panel is still odd to say the least. Giant ducks. A bird mouth-feeding a man. A nude (woman?) upside-down in the water with a giant (tomato?) stuck between her legs. Couldn't he have just painted men and women making love? I mean--without the giant animals or fruits. At the same time, it seems to complement the final panel. In the first panel, God creates Adam and Eve. Simple. Good. Beautiful. Once man takes charge of things, it all gets busy, strange and chaotic. This leads to their downfall in the final panel.
I think that Michelangelo's sculptures are the most interesting of the Renaissance art that we have studied thus far because they represent a true "rebirth" of the classical ideals in his restrained faces and ideal bodies. The paintings on the sisteen chapel were also innovative in his chuby figures.
I like Michelangelo's depiction of Adam's creation. The image of God stretching his finger toward that of Adam is quite memorable. It seems to characterize man's relation to God--constantly reaching forward.
I have to say i loved "the garden of earthly delights", not to sound weird but i thought it was very interesting. I think it is really neat that Bosch was brave to make a painting like that because it was nothing like any other piece of art. Also,i think the third panel may have scared people to be good so they don't encounter those musical instruments!
I really liked "The Ambassadors." I thought the contrast of ideas between all the scholarly instruments in the back and the (inexplicably skewed) skull in the front was really interesting. The piece glorifies earthly accomplishment and learning with the lute and globe and stuff, while at the same time signifying through the skull that in the end all of us - the intelligent and scholarly just as much as the not-so-scholarly - are still bound to the same fate of death.
The Garden of Earthly delights did creep me out a little bit. It was surreal in an eerie way. A little bit too in your face. To me the painter seemed like he was trying to say "Don't have sex, because you will get pregnant and die!"
I'm going to have to remain highly ambivalent because comparing the Northern and Italian renaissances is like comparing apples and pears: similarities exits, but they are vitally different.
Flip flopper! Take a stand! I like Botticelli. I love how the positioning of his figures gives a sense of weightlessness and grace to all of his figures. Also, the delicate facial construction of the women in his paintings is incredibly naturalistic and beautiful.
I agree with Joel. Botticelli's figures are so lovely-- their naturalism isn't as perfect as maybe Da Vinci's or Raphael's, but they quite naturalistic, and they have an airy sense of delicacy to them. He stylizes them in such a lovely, pleasing way.
Michelangelo's stuff was nice in the beginning (I love David and the Pieta) but I really don't like his bulked up figures-- I personally find them rather gross. Also, his masculine women are creepy. To me-- just an opinion.
Also, Botticelli's women are just so beautiful. And he painted one of the first female nudes, which makes him cool for switching up on the ideal of his time.
I really liked Michelangelo's sculptures, but I didn't like his paintings as much. The figures in his paintings seem so bulky and over-muscular. However, I also liked The Garden of Earthy Delights because of its surrealism. It's so strange and unusual. Also, I liked the delicate naturalistic painting of Venus of Urbino.
I thought that the Garden of Earthy Delights was a strange departure from the other Renaissance art that we have studied. It seemed to me to be a graphic depiction of earth that would have been more readily accepted during the medieval period where the function of art was to basically scare people into living virtuous lives.
I enjoyed the "muscularness" of michaelangelo's men in his paintings. he did it to go back to the classical period and i think he did a very good job of capturing that "classical" feel in his art. i am a big fan of his paintings and even his sculptures from this chapter.
Joel, it is not flip-flopping. The real similarities between the Northern Renaissance/Reformation and the Sourhtern Renaissance are that: 1) use of techniques to create a realistic/naturalistic world and 2) the time period. These two factors allowed for art to grow into completely different beasts. where the Southern Renaissance focused on the divine and anciect Greeks/Romans, the Northern movements seemed more concerned with the scenes themselves and were less tied to the confines of the Church.
If you want me to take a stand, I shall say that I prefer the Norhtern movements because of what spawns out of them and what they have evolved into. Religious scenes bore me.
i would like to add to my michelangelo comment. i too like the muscularness of his figures. he shows that he can imitate classical figures while still painting them in his own style.
I somewhat agree with joel on the religious scenes being boring, i mean the paintings are very good but they get slightly repetitive. it seems like some images are depicted far too many times.
I agree with Nick that the typical religious scenes are often copied many times, but I believe that this is a common place as many of the midevil art we studied depicted the same basic images of crucifixion, birth of jesus, and other typical scenes. The Renaissance, however, differs greatly in its depictions of these scenes.
I like how Michelangelo's David is not only idealized, but supposedly a self-portrait. Michelangelo is essentially immortalizing himself as, um... chiseled. (Get it? Because it's chiseled out of stone, but chiseled can also mean like very muscular... hah ha ha)
If I were an artist I would probably do what Michelangelo did with David except do it with everything. I would just make all of my art a tribute to how awesome I am, and after my death only the idealized version of myself will live on, and everyone will think I was perfect.
i like how people reinterpret religious scenes over and over again while still creating other scenes as well. i like to see how the same pictures evolve.
The same pictures did not evolve but rather the interpretation of certain biblical events such as Adam and Eve's banishments from the Garden of Eden. The figures seem to become more naturalistc over time. There is also the subject of David's triumph over Goliath, which has evolved greatly in its interpretation. Early sculptures displayed him as an young boy with feminine qualities, while Michelangelo's David is an idealized man
I liked Botticelli's paintings and the way his figures looked calm. I prefer the Northern Renaissance. I really liked the Ambassadors for the reason that John posted. I thought the skull was a nice addition even though it looked out of place. I also liked that they didn't have as many restrictions as the southern renaissance did. Oh, but I disliked the garden of earthly deligths. That was very wierd.
About Michelangelo, his works were really good, but his sculptors were better than his paintings in my opinion. I thought the three levels for the tomb was a nice addition and I liked how he incorporated that into his chapel ceiling by painting in the archetecture.
vs.
33 comments:
I like Michelangelo. He's the man. I mean, the stuff he did is just crazy
Me too. He seemed so versatile in his artistic expression, with paintings and sculptures. His "David" was incredibly naturalistic (especially his hand, with the veins and the knuckles). The Sistine chapel also took a lot of attention to detail with the ignudi perching on fake archictecture.
I think Jan Van Eyck's painting of the Arnolfini wedding is interesting. I'm not sure I would say that I like it, though. It's cool that Eyck wrote "Jan Van Eyck was here" on the back wall. Seemingly egotistical, but cool nonetheless. It reminds me of Michelangelo signing his Pieta or Gislibertus his Last Judgment. The guy's eyes creep me out, though. It's like he's morphing into a fish or something. The fold in his chin is like the formation of a gill.
I prefer the southern renaissance much more than the northern renaissance. The art work seemed more bright and colorful and certain pieces like the van eyck pieces and "the ambassadors" seem dark to me for some reason, but the dark pieces (color wise) of the southern renaissance like "madonna on the rocks" seems much more peaceful and calm. So i just like the southern renaissance artwork more.
Well...I like how some of the paintings of the Northern Renaissance represent every day settings, like "Marriage of Giovanni and Giovanna" and "Venus of Urbino". However, I freaking HATE the unusual paintings like "Garden of Earthly Delights" and the one about St. Anthony's with the odd bird creature. But I'm kind of opposite from Nicholas in that I liked the symbolism in "The Ambassadors".
Yes! I definitely agree with you on "The Garden of Earthly Delights." The third panel is obviously grotesque, but the middle panel is still odd to say the least. Giant ducks. A bird mouth-feeding a man. A nude (woman?) upside-down in the water with a giant (tomato?) stuck between her legs. Couldn't he have just painted men and women making love? I mean--without the giant animals or fruits. At the same time, it seems to complement the final panel. In the first panel, God creates Adam and Eve. Simple. Good. Beautiful. Once man takes charge of things, it all gets busy, strange and chaotic. This leads to their downfall in the final panel.
I think that Michelangelo's sculptures are the most interesting of the Renaissance art that we have studied thus far because they represent a true "rebirth" of the classical ideals in his restrained faces and ideal bodies. The paintings on the sisteen chapel were also innovative in his chuby figures.
I like Michelangelo's depiction of Adam's creation. The image of God stretching his finger toward that of Adam is quite memorable. It seems to characterize man's relation to God--constantly reaching forward.
I have to say i loved "the garden of earthly delights", not to sound weird but i thought it was very interesting. I think it is really neat that Bosch was brave to make a painting like that because it was nothing like any other piece of art. Also,i think the third panel may have scared people to be good so they don't encounter those musical instruments!
I really liked "The Ambassadors." I thought the contrast of ideas between all the scholarly instruments in the back and the (inexplicably skewed) skull in the front was really interesting. The piece glorifies earthly accomplishment and learning with the lute and globe and stuff, while at the same time signifying through the skull that in the end all of us - the intelligent and scholarly just as much as the not-so-scholarly - are still bound to the same fate of death.
The Garden of Earthly delights did creep me out a little bit. It was surreal in an eerie way. A little bit too in your face. To me the painter seemed like he was trying to say "Don't have sex, because you will get pregnant and die!"
i really like michelangelo. his figures are amazing. i think that he was the best artist we have studied.
I'm going to have to remain highly ambivalent because comparing the Northern and Italian renaissances is like comparing apples and pears: similarities exits, but they are vitally different.
Flip flopper! Take a stand! I like Botticelli. I love how the positioning of his figures gives a sense of weightlessness and grace to all of his figures. Also, the delicate facial construction of the women in his paintings is incredibly naturalistic and beautiful.
I agree with Joel. Botticelli's figures are so lovely-- their naturalism isn't as perfect as maybe Da Vinci's or Raphael's, but they quite naturalistic, and they have an airy sense of delicacy to them. He stylizes them in such a lovely, pleasing way.
Michelangelo's stuff was nice in the beginning (I love David and the Pieta) but I really don't like his bulked up figures-- I personally find them rather gross. Also, his masculine women are creepy. To me-- just an opinion.
Also, Botticelli's women are just so beautiful. And he painted one of the first female nudes, which makes him cool for switching up on the ideal of his time.
I really liked Michelangelo's sculptures, but I didn't like his paintings as much. The figures in his paintings seem so bulky and over-muscular. However, I also liked The Garden of Earthy Delights because of its surrealism. It's so strange and unusual. Also, I liked the delicate naturalistic painting of Venus of Urbino.
I think the southern was much better than the northern. the marriage of giovanna and others just bored me.
I thought that the Garden of Earthy Delights was a strange departure from the other Renaissance art that we have studied. It seemed to me to be a graphic depiction of earth that would have been more readily accepted during the medieval period where the function of art was to basically scare people into living virtuous lives.
I enjoyed the "muscularness" of michaelangelo's men in his paintings. he did it to go back to the classical period and i think he did a very good job of capturing that "classical" feel in his art. i am a big fan of his paintings and even his sculptures from this chapter.
Joel, it is not flip-flopping. The real similarities between the Northern Renaissance/Reformation and the Sourhtern Renaissance are that: 1) use of techniques to create a realistic/naturalistic world and 2) the time period. These two factors allowed for art to grow into completely different beasts. where the Southern Renaissance focused on the divine and anciect Greeks/Romans, the Northern movements seemed more concerned with the scenes themselves and were less tied to the confines of the Church.
If you want me to take a stand, I shall say that I prefer the Norhtern movements because of what spawns out of them and what they have evolved into.
Religious scenes bore me.
i would like to add to my michelangelo comment. i too like the muscularness of his figures. he shows that he can imitate classical figures while still painting them in his own style.
I somewhat agree with joel on the religious scenes being boring, i mean the paintings are very good but they get slightly repetitive. it seems like some images are depicted far too many times.
I agree with Nick that the typical religious scenes are often copied many times, but I believe that this is a common place as many of the midevil art we studied depicted the same basic images of crucifixion, birth of jesus, and other typical scenes. The Renaissance, however, differs greatly in its depictions of these scenes.
I like how Michelangelo's David is not only idealized, but supposedly a self-portrait. Michelangelo is essentially immortalizing himself as, um... chiseled. (Get it? Because it's chiseled out of stone, but chiseled can also mean like very muscular... hah ha ha)
If I were an artist I would probably do what Michelangelo did with David except do it with everything. I would just make all of my art a tribute to how awesome I am, and after my death only the idealized version of myself will live on, and everyone will think I was perfect.
Flawless plan.
lmao john
i like how people reinterpret religious scenes over and over again while still creating other scenes as well. i like to see how the same pictures evolve.
The same pictures did not evolve but rather the interpretation of certain biblical events such as Adam and Eve's banishments from the Garden of Eden. The figures seem to become more naturalistc over time. There is also the subject of David's triumph over Goliath, which has evolved greatly in its interpretation. Early sculptures displayed him as an young boy with feminine qualities, while Michelangelo's David is an idealized man
okay, yea. i like how the interpretations of certain biblical events evolved.
I liked Botticelli's paintings and the way his figures looked calm. I prefer the Northern Renaissance. I really liked the Ambassadors for the reason that John posted. I thought the skull was a nice addition even though it looked out of place. I also liked that they didn't have as many restrictions as the southern renaissance did. Oh, but I disliked the garden of earthly deligths. That was very wierd.
About Michelangelo, his works were really good, but his sculptors were better than his paintings in my opinion. I thought the three levels for the tomb was a nice addition and I liked how he incorporated that into his chapel ceiling by painting in the archetecture.
xanax online xanax drug forms - pictures generic xanax tablets
Post a Comment