ca. 1850 Portrait of a Young Lady by Grahl 1850 Lady Einsle 1850s Marie Amalie, Princess of Baden 1851 Antonietta Tarsis Basilico 1851 Madame Marie-Clotilde-Ins Moitessier by Ingres 1851 Portrait of a Lady Queen Victoria and Wellington Arriving…
ca. 1850 Portrait of a Young Lady by Grahl 1850 Lady Einsle 1850s Marie Amalie, Princess of Baden 1851 Antonietta Tarsis Basilico 1851 Madame Marie-Clotilde-Ins Moitessier by Ingres 1851 Portrait of a Lady Queen Victoria and Wellington Arriving…
ca. 1850 Portrait of a Young Lady by Grahl 1850 Lady Einsle 1850s Marie Amalie, Princess of Baden 1851 Antonietta Tarsis Basilico 1851 Madame Marie-Clotilde-Ins Moitessier by Ingres 1851 Portrait of a Lady Queen Victoria and Wellington Arriving…
This “tribal style bible” from fashion stylist Ellie Uyttenbroek (known for the Exactitudes photo series that inspired Vetements) presents a personal selection of modified images from the ethnographic photo collection of the Nederlands Fotomuseum. Using her eye for fashion, Uyttenbroek selected one hundred posed portraits, dating from the 1850s to the recent past, focusing on individual expression, silhouette, pose, outfit, styling, body adornment, accessories, and other fashionable details. The starting point for selection was style, popularly understood to mean something akin to attitude, approach, habitus, bearing, modus, manner, and taste. In addition to historical information, Uyttenbroek reports her stylistic and idiosyncratic observations, making the viewer aware of the beauty and autonomous visual power of the different portraits. The World Collection of the Nederlands Fotomuseum is renowned for its ethno-historical pictures from the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and the Americas. The collection centers on mankind and his environment, from 1850 to now, in all of its manifestations. Designed by Mary Pelders Vos Published by Nai010 Publishers (the Netherlands) In Dutch and English Softcover, 174 pages, color and b&w illustrations, 6.75 × 9.5 inches ISBN: 978-94-6208-363-9
Всем здравствуйте! Как правильно заметили в комментариях к предыдущему посту серии, модные тенденции от обзора к обзору меняются все быстрее. Если в более древние времена они приживались на года, десятилетия (а то и века!), то чем ближе рассказ движется к современности, тем больше материала приходится охватывать, и тем сложнее
I viewed both the Bouguereau and the Mancini paintings last year when I visited Chicago for the 2010 College Academy of Arts conference (CAA). They can be found at the Art Institute of Chicago. I want to clarify my reason for not discussing the history that corresponds with the paintings I'm discussing. SmART Observations isn't exactly an art history blog. I'm hoping to give my readers the tools and the confidence to approach abstract and conceptual works so they are capable of drawing their own conclusions without having to extract facts from a depth of historical knowledge. However, if you are interested in art history, I encourage you to go to your local library and peruse Gardner's Art Through the Ages to give yourself a general timeline and brief historical outlook on art. Art through the Ages is to art history students as Grey's Anatomy is to Med students. It's the Bible...but abridged. As we saw in the Turner painting, shapes and color determine the way in which we respond to a work of art despite it's subject matter. Remember the emotive power of his landscape? In this comparison of Bouguereau's Bathers and Mancini's Resting, I'm hoping to get a little bit more technical. I believe that these two paintings shed light on the main differences between classical and modern style and painterly technique, which I'll explain in depth later. In the Bouguereau (pronounced boo-ga-row), the bathers are painted with such polished brushstrokes, that the viewer forgets that this is a painting at all. It truly does looks more like a print. Even up close, despite the "cracks of time," the artist's brushstrokes are virtually invisible. So clean. So smooth. So beautifully, intricately painted that even the slightest indication of the artist's hand would affect the style of the entire work. This is what we (in the biz) refer to as an artist's painterly technique. Every artist has their own, and it is a determining factor when experts authenticate a painting or try to identify an anonymous artist. ALWAYS EXAMINE THE TYPE OF BRUSHSTROKE USED IN THE PAINTING YOU'RE LOOKING AT! Take a look at this close up: That delicate application is what many 19th century artists strove for. Why? Because that statuesque perfection referenced classical art. What's classical art? Art of the ancient world-->Greece and Rome. Why did artists care about classical art? Artists have cared about classical art since classicism ended. Remember a little time period called the High Renaissance? Much of the Renaissance is derived from classical sculpture. It was thought by many to be the standard of perfection--everything was geometrically calculated, every brushstroke and color was deliberate. The classical philosophers (Aristotle and Plato) were seen as pedagogical heros. The generations following wanted to mimic or pay homage to this time of great achievement. Even the word "Renaissance" means "rebirth." I used this painting and this artist to represent many 19th century artists who painted in a similar way including Jacques-Louis David, Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (pronounced "ankle" without the "kle"), or Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson. Bouguereau adapts the classical style into his own perfect construction. His bathers were meant to be titillating for their male audience (more on feminism and art later) while maintaining it's allegiance to it's heritage. Bouguereau's painting is relevant to the time he lived in, yet stylistically follows the lineage of which it came. You can almost imagine Bouguereau's women as marble statues. Static, inert, motionless. Perfectly constructed representations of the ideal woman. But what do we do when we have attained the same level of perfection over and over again? We break tradition and GO CRAZY BABY! But it happens slowly. Check out a detail of the Mancini. What's the difference between Bouguereau's painterly technique and Mancini's? The facture obviously. Contrary to Bouguereau, Mancini uses a thick application of paint with traces of his brush and knife carved into his thick impasto (depth of paint). He uses a rough, apparent, and conspicuous application of paint. Cool, but so what? What effect does this have on the viewer? It constantly reminds you that you're looking at a painting, not an illusion of reality. The Mancini painting is a screen with paint on it, not a transparent window (like the Bouguereau). It recognizes the objecthood of the painting and emphasizes its materiality. THIS IS MODERNISM. Baby. It's an amazing realization and a critical one for understanding modern art. This idea will continue into the 20th century. In addition to its transformative and enlightening powers, a painting is also simply a painting-- a thing, an object, a commodity, a used, dirty canvas. Remember that the Mancini painting was done within three years of the Bouguereau. Throughout the 19th century there was a classicist/modernist rivalry much like that of the jet/shark west side story conflict. Actually it's more like the Capulet/Monteque rivalry because modernism and classicism really are star-crossed lovers in the end. But it really doesn't matter which analogy I use because the West Side Story is an adaptation of Romeo a... I digress, back to art. Mancini's whimsical, semi-impressionistic brushstroke suggests a fleeting moment that will soon become the norm. Whereas Bouguereau attempts to create an image of geometrically perfect, motionless women, caught in a moment in time, Mancini's picture references the ephemeral (temporary) moment. The idea of time is a major motif (theme) for many artists after the invention of photography in 1839. Side note: You can see the modernity beginning in the previously discussed Turner painting as well. His discovery of oil paint's fluidity (to the point where the paint itself is almost the subject) were essential steps toward 20th century abstract painting where figurative subjects and form are dispensed with altogether. Next time I'll discuss some further differences in subject matter in modern art. Thanks for reading N.B.F.
This group is dedicated to the past and present art of the daguerreotype. Please do not post photographs that are processed in Photoshop to look like daguerreotypes. Past Developed by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce and Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre, the daguerreotype was presented to the public in 1839 as the first commercially viable photographic process. The daguerreotype quickly gained popularity and photographic studios were established across Europe and the United States. This popularity was relatively short lived however and by 1860 the daguerreotype process was replaced by safer, easier, and less expensive processes. Although brief in existence, the impact of the daguerreotype was immense. It is the process that formed the basis for the art of photography. Present The art of the daguerreotype was abandoned for nearly 100 years and only recently have photographers dared to attempt the process again. Most of the old methods were lost and only general descriptions of the process have survived. Much trial and error has gone into developing new methods to reproduce daguerreotypes with the same stunning quality as those created in the mid nineteenth century. Upcoming Events Resources Forum Contemporary Daguerreotypists
The upstart German painter climbed the social ladder to become the favorite portraitist of European nobility. Here's how he did it.
