Art History Thread

[nofx]

I have this idea of everyweek posting history about artist probably indiscreetesque then artists everyone should know I wont begin this week but probably next Saturday/Sunday, im doing this for my own merit to further my art history knowledge, art movements, and etc. Anyone want to help me or kind of like be an editor pointing out errors that may occur would be appreciated. Ill probably start in 1337 with the death of Giotto to the renaissance then keep going from there forever branching and growing until today. Its going to be hard but fun none the less. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Hullu]

If you ever do start, I'll be interested. Sounds like you know much more than I do about art history. So I can't really help but please start writing.

 

[Krynn72]

Im interested too. You will probably be a better teacher than my so-called art history teacher last semester.

And when I say im interested, I mean really interested. I wanted to learn our art history, but my teacher sucked so bad that I hardly learned anything but the names of people.

 

[Dan]

The only art history I know much about is Impressionism. It sort of offset the deterministic realistic art that people liked at the time. Monet started it with his exhibition of "Impression Sunrise". Impressionism is characterised by a focus on the impression on the viewer rather than the object being rendered. Light becomes very important because light is the medium that we see these things with. An object is different under low light or high light or sunrise

 

[Hullu]

The idea behind Impressionism is to deconstruct form into separate dots/spots, that will not unite and create a form until they reach your retina. Thus you wouldn't need to think the form but merely receive it, and therefore you will have a 'pure' idea of the form, rather than a preconceived idea of the object it represents. This also makes it a superficial approach on reality, in my opinion anyway. Impressionism does not attempt to convey any deeper issues but simply the superficial, aesthetic aspects of reality.

 

[Dan]

The idea behind Impressionism is to deconstruct form into separate dots/spots, that will not unite and create a form until they reach your retina. Thus you wouldn't need to think the form but merely receive it, and therefore you will have a 'pure' idea of the form, rather than a preconceived idea of the object it represents. This also makes it a superficial approach on reality, in my opinion anyway. Impressionism does not attempt to convey any deeper issues but simply the superficial, aesthetic aspects of reality.

The dots/spots thing is pointilism which was one of the later offbranches of impressionism. This is Impression Sunrise, one of my favourite paintings:

Impressionism exists in some sense in all art because you are never really capturing reality perfectly, you are only getting an expression of it, filtered through the artists mind. This is particularly relevant today where you will never more closely capture reality than through a camera. It's the impressions that art conveys that makes art beautiful. Imagine seeing a great artist capture the essence of a person with only a handful of lines. Somehow they are conveying the meaning directly to you so you get the impression of the subject, not the subject itself.

 

[CrazyHarij]

Imagine seeing a great artist capture the essence of a person with only a handful of lines. Somehow they are conveying the meaning directly to you so you get the impression of the subject, not the subject itself.

www.goodbrush.com

 

[Dan]

yeah, I'm already a big Craig Mullins fan. You should check out some of his postings on Sijun

 

[Hullu]

I just think they went too far with pointillism. It looks terrible. And I also make a distinction between 'nice' art and 'serious' art. The former is created to make people feel happy, the latter is created to make a statement about something. I like 'nice' art nevertheless.

 

[Hullu]

I also have a question. I read an article about some artist's work, and the writer described the art as 'naively surrealistic'. Does that mean that surrealism is by definition naive, or that naivety is an additional attribute of this artist's surrealist works?

 

[nofx]

Sorry guys my life go so busy so quickly I kind of abandoned this thread but I'll strike with vengeance very soon I want to start before the renaissance with my man giotto and try to explain how renaissance bursts

 

[Hullu]

Please do?

 

[Krynn72]

Please do?

Seconded.

 

[nofx]

Hahah what you've all been waiting for?
Yet, i am kind of tired so I will write this kind of as a blog but I will do my best to educate you all as I haver a been educated if you find any errors in this feel free to correct me or debate me I dont care this thread is about learning about art and how to understand it better and have a growth for art appreciation.

So we start before all things:
with Giotto:

As you can see his art is fairly flat. The composition is bazaar. This artist lived in Florence 1267-1337 (one of my favorite bcause of the death year ;x) Basically art at this time was blind. Blind I say because they really had no use in the math which means no perspective/proportion, or correct anatomy. The shy away at using real peopl, real figures to create and put into their paintings they rely on account usually bliblical account. The setting is generally quite bland and lacking religious iconography besides the halo.
Fast forward 2 centuries to the renaissance in Italy. It begins in Florence (due to the republic they have, overrall officent nobles it allows of this) and sweeps across europe. primarilary thanks to the plague it hits the major trade cities first then continues its ravage on the people, it originates in china and makes it way over. After the plague towns are decimated.

Slowly a group later labeled as the tuscan triumvirate (not really a group but w.e) find classical documents from Rome in a basement. they read the documents and a surge of interest back to the classics is born. society begins to want to go back to the classics this "golden age of man" in rome they have grande structures buildings, magnificient sculptings. i bet the artist are thinking man, why have we been doing everything backwards? great artists are born.
i will start with the 3 greatest everyone should know aand later i will add more maybe "minor arist" but still play a role btw i will try to go further no just the renaissance like baroque, rococo, neoclassical, romantics, realist etc.
michelangelo and his sistine chapel ; also these artistsat the time are usually under popes because the popes have the $$ and can give the artist a true true high class backing

its quite a difference. we see the effective use of anatomy real people and actual iconography it was later debated wether that the "god" or w/e touching davids hand was actually giving him the intellect of the age of the renaissance look cloesly and youll see the man basketed in the brain about to give the bursting knowledge

michelangelo also did a pieta, which is basically a scultptor/painting of mary holding jesus

michelangelo is amazing to me (just like most the other renaissance artist) because he is so engulfed to not only 2d art and frescoes he goes and dips into architecture, and sculpting . imagine all this time being puported into the arts no wonder they make such grand works, it has been rumored that they paint down to the bristil. so that they only have one strand left.

michelangelos david:

david represents florence, david from the bible was small but took down the giant heavily secular: by being inrested in music writing poems. it kind of represents florence being the small place with a lot of energy

here is donatellos david in bronze compared to michelangelos david:

i havent seen it in real life but i here it is a massive beast
michelangelo's david stand haughty and looking like hey you guys look what florence has done it has totally became first rate


you may wonder why i explain the time period its because they are REALLY infused with one another and go hand and hand I will keep putting up more artists as i can but right now its all next time i will explore da vinci, raphael in depth then major artists: the we move up north to the northeren renaissance with eyck and durer then we goto baroque and rococo where things get revolutionized :d

 

[Hullu]

Woo!

I am not convinced that it was due to 'blindness' that Giotto and co did not paint with perspective and with anatomical accurateness. It's because the art was so spiritual, nobody wanted to see naked people, and people as individuals were not esteemed. God was everything and painting people with beautiful bodies would have been inappropriate. That's why the art is mainly symbolic, and it is supposed to simply make people think of divine things, not look at beautiful pictures.

That was very clear and succinct wasn't it.

Ooh and I love Donatello's David, btw- looks so erotic in a cheeky way.

 

[Krynn72]

Sweet! Thanks for posting.

I have one question about the pose of the two David sculptures. Are they both in contraposto pose? I remember learning this back in the old college days, where the left foot is forward and the body has a kind of lean to it. I cant remember if thats all there was to it, or even if the contaposto pose was realized during michelangelos time.

 

[nofx]

Woo!

I am not convinced that it was due to 'blindness' that Giotto and co did not paint with perspective and with anatomical accurateness. It's because the art was so spiritual, nobody wanted to see naked people, and people as individuals were not esteemed. God was everything and painting people with beautiful bodies would have been inappropriate. That's why the art is mainly symbolic, and it is supposed to simply make people think of divine things, not look at beautiful pictures.

That was very clear and succinct wasn't it.

Ooh and I love Donatello's David, btw- looks so erotic in a cheeky way.

Yes, I totally agree with you.

Ill update with some more artists later after i finish my tonights reading