Is there a word for the painting/ composition style that makes you feel like you’re spying in on the scene? I remember learning that Vermeer paintings evoked this feeling, as well as paintings like “Las Meninas.”
Is there a blog or thread anyone can point me to with a collection of these types of paintings?
I took the latest conservation research into some famous paintings, where they mapped exactly how the pigments degraded over time, and did a digital restoration of what they probably looked like when they were originally painted using an optical formula called the Kubelka-Munk function.
All the sources and techniques are on this site, enjoy!
For me the answer changes every week. But this week it’s Portrait of An Artist (Pool with Two Figures) 1972 by David Hockney. It’s massive 7 feet by 10 feet~. It’s not apart of a series, it’s big enough to be the whole series. I find it really interesting that he created the composition by composing film photos together. The color of this painting is so vibrant I would love to see the tiles up close.
Would love to hear what painting comes in mind for you!
Ps: if you like to look more into this painting and see the process here is the links I used
https://www.thedavidhockneyfoundation.org/chronology/1972
I have been trying to find out what this is. Everyone thinks it belongs to a pin ball machine, but there are no numbers, no words, the lights are either on or off (no blinking). No artist mark, just acrylic on glass, mounted on solid wood base that had picture wire for hanging it on a wall.
My art history is driving me crazy. I can’t help but think I’ve seen a face like that before, but cannot remember what artist or even genre.
Google image is not helpful at all.
Like many Munch paintings, it obviously focuses on the theme of death, but why is the little girl covering her ears? For whatever it's worth, this painting is allegedly haunted (I suppose all Munch paintings look haunted, but this one includes reports of the girl disappearing from the painting on occasion).
Danaïde was cast around 1913, inspired by Margit Pogány, a Hungarian art student Brancusi met in Paris. He spent years distilling her features into this — a tilted head, eyes closed, 27cm of bronze covered in gold leaf.
The title references the Danaids from Greek myth — fifty daughters condemned to fill leaking jars in Hades for eternity. Water endlessly poured in, endlessly escaped.
Brancusi's whole philosophy was about stripping away surface detail to reveal essential beauty. "Simplicity is complexity resolved." So why attach a myth about endless futility to something this still and complete?
The work just sold at Christie's for $107.6 million — a new record for the artist. But the question of the title has always stayed with me.
This is a Dali painting that I don't remember. What do you make of its symbolism? I know who Narcissus is, but Dali paintings always have something else going on in them.
Stephen Sawyer (1995) is best known for his “Art 4 God" series that reimagined Jesus in contemporary settings, often depicting him wearing casual clothing in everyday but still eventful situations
Some traditionalists criticized the series for portraying Christ in overly modern ways, arguing it moved too far from classical depictions found in Christian art.
(I hope I didn't phrase this in a weird way, English isn't my first language. I am asking this as a serious question.)
The ability to make hard marble look like soft flesh is of the most impressive skills to possess in sculpting. It's hard to believe that if you reached out to these statues, they'd be hard and cold to the touch.
This sculpture, Endymion by Antonio Corradini is a favourite of mine. I especially adore the hands: the way the left hand lightly grips the sheet, and the way the right hand just barely touches the stomach.
What is a sculpture that exudes such sensuality, that you can hardly believe it's made out of stone?
Saint Joan of Arc is one of the better known Christian Saints in popular culture. She's known for her role in the Siege of Orleans and the purported Divine Guidance that assisted her, which later won her the designation of the Patron Saint of France.
According to Joan, 3 voices continually counseled and protected her in her mission to save France from English Occupation. These were the Archangel Michael, Saint Catherine of Alexandria and Saint Margaret. She also reported being visited by Saint Gabriel. In her own words:
"When I was thirteen, I had a voice from God to help me to govern myself. The first time, I was terrified. The voice came to me about noon: it was summer, and I was in my father’s garden….I saw it many times before I knew it was Saint Michael….He was not alone, but duly attended by heavenly angels….He told me Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret would come to me, and I must follow their counsel; that they were appointed to guide and counsel me in what I had to do, and that I must believe what they would tell me, for it was at our Lord’s command."
One of the more popular aspects of Joan's life to be depicted in artwork are imaginings of her reaction to these voices and visions. I find their choices in portraying her reaction interesting to compare and contrast. Some choose literal depictions of visions, others are more figurative, and her reactions range from humble piety to terrifying determination. I'm curious what others think! Do you have a favorite in the set, or is there another version that I didn't include that you like?
Discussion: Below my discussion is a poem I wrote about Monet’s Garden of Giverny. He amongst most impressionist artists reflected in their art how nature - the Sun and with it shade changes the appearance of the objects as the sun reflects upon them. This artwork shows a reality in nature that is not often shown in other forms of art especially at that time. I find it fascinating that impressionists broke out from other artists at this time and showed patrons viewing his creations another way to look at artwork.
Monet reflected his own passion. In his Garden of Giverny there was a pond with various floating water lilies. To visit his Gardens would have been fascinating.
Monet’s paintings like his gardens illustrate effects of nature.
He crafted a pond with a sun’s radiance affected by shade.
Monet arrayed his gardens on many good sized canvases
where on one he captured his color in his water lilies.
By using short, thick strokes to capture essence from his sun,
he reflected in his paintings that sun’s illusion and movement.
On his canvases the pond mirrored the atmospheric changes
such as the wind moving a cloud; a sun creating reflection the
wind providing movement as the water lilies floated to its edges;
Monet created movement with an intriguing continuity of color.
Illumination was important in his paintings as in his gardens.
He ensured his sun’s reflection would affect all of his creations.
It was light that softened or dazzled the color on his canvas.
The contrasting light and shade in his paintings created variety.
Monet and artistes of the day changed the future of modern art.
Monet’s use of color was significant in the artwork of his future.
He refused to depend on order and replication which caused
Monet to retreat from his studio into painting in the open air.
©️LGE January 2021 - revised November 28, 2023
When looking at other artists work, I often notice a weird visual effect. Even when the painting is beautiful, with perfect anatomy and high detail, the figures look like a magazine collage. It feels like they were cut out from somewhere else and pasted on top of a background.
I'd like to understand why this happens so I can avoid doing it in my paintings. I have a feeling it's a result of studio references or digital edition, but I don't understand how could this be fixed. Perhaps there's something in the ambiance that also needs to be applied to the figures or something like this.
What is happening in pieces like this that creates this "collage effect"? Is it an issue with edges, lighting, or atmosphere? I’d love to hear your thoughts so I can apply this knowledge to my own workflow
I love these artists, but I need to address the elephant in the room...
Images:
Song of the Angels by Bouguereau
Triumph of Daedalus Over Fate and Futility by Bryan Larsen.
Norman Rockwell titled Fifty-Fifty.
Homecoming by Norman Rockwell
Laura and the Dogs by Guillermo Lorca
A luminous red rectangular abstract by Mark Rothko sold for $85.8 million on Thursday.” Brown and Blacks in Red”s was the most anticipated work among the 24 pieces that made up Sotheby's sale.
The monumental canvas, nearly two and a half meters tall, belongs to the most important decade of the artist's output, when Rothko developed his mature visual language, defined by broad, overlapping rectangular fields of color. Dominated by a powerful range of deep reds, the composition stands as one of the most intense examples of his exploration of color's emotional perception.
The work belonged for twenty years to Robert Mnuchin, a celebrated New York banker who comes from an American Jewish family connected to finance and art collecting, and before him spent 50 years in the Seagram collection. The Rothko was purchased by phone after a bidding battle lasting just a few minutes. It may not have blown past expectations, but it was always going to be a stretch to exceed the $70–100 million estimate.
Credits to: https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/fine-art/mark-rothko-abstract-sells-for-85-8-million-dab34442
I picked this up in a good will store in Dublin. It's litho #5 26/55 by Arthur Solin called "Mr Donnelles Delight". I bought it because I really liked it. Gives me Otto Dix lithography vibes. Paid €190 for it. Probably over the odds but honestly this wasn't a investment purchase and it was a charity shop.
My read on the piece is that we're in the new objectivity style, judging a brothel scene. The man on the right has is finger in a bottle while being presented with a working girl by the brothels madam.
But open to plenty more interpretation.
I live in California and will be visiting Philadelphia for the first time in October. I’m over the moon about all the museums and of course am the most excited about the Philadelphia Museum of Art! Art history has always been one of my deepest passions.
Anyway, I’ve been doing some research and I know they have a large Cézanne collection and some Van Gogh’s, but what other pieces should I make sure I see? I have such FOMO with museums. I hate leaving and finding out later that I was so close to something that I should have seen!
I posted this in a ‘thrift store find’ group . My analysis, as an artist, is that this dog has died and this is a memorial to the dog. The dog seems to be lying in snow and there is a broken tree branch lying on top of him. (Plus, that leaf was glued to the artwork - a leaf from the branch perhaps?)
The people in the thrifting group seem to think I’m insane, that the dog is clearly just sleeping. But to me, this is an artist’s take on a sad event and that this dog is no longer alive. They just say, ‘he’s just sleeping and there is something wrong with you for thinking otherwise.’ That may be true, but to me, from an artist’s standpoint, the artist doesn’t have to show the dog as dead for it to convey the feeling of loss. Would love to get your thoughts on whether my psychology is getting in the way of recognizing that this dog is just sleeping in the snow under a fallen tree branch. (In second pic I highlighted the branch because it’s a little hard to see)
Ella Du Cane’s watercolor illustrations were extremely popular in the early 20th century through the illustrated travel books of A&C Black. Her images of Venice, Japan, Egypt, and the Alps reached a broad audience and clearly shaped how many readers imagined those places.
Her work didn’t just circulate in books, but was also reproduced on decorative objects such as silver enamel boxes and published as postcards, showing how widely recognizable her work had become at the time. Some of the reproductions of work by Ella Du Cane and other forgotten female artists on silver boxes, have now been highlighted in "Silver Enamel Boxes; A Time Capsule", which documents connections between enamelwork and popular visual culture around 1900.
Despite this level of visibility, she is now only rarely mentioned in broader art-historical discussions. Was it her work overlooked because of the category it fell into — somewhere between illustration, publishing, decoration, and fine art? Or was it simply that later in the 20th century, her work was underrated because she was a woman?