Fall of Phaeton, Rise of Ricci

     I decided to research and analyze Sebastiano Ricci’s painting Fall of Phaeton. Sebastiano Ricci practiced his craft in the late 17th early 18th century in Venice. His work had a sense of Rococo or late Baroque style with its asymmetrical compositions, curved lines and intense perspectives.What initially attracted my attention to Ricci was the detail and intense motion of his work. The movement he was able to capture in his paintings brought out the drama of the stories and really hinted at the early Baroque style that was still lingering in Ricci’s technique. The painting Fall of Phaeton is a prime example where the motion and perspective of the composition is exaggerated to an extreme and really brings out the tension in the work. This is more then a simply aesthetically beautiful painting. It is a wonderful representation of one of my favorite stories of Greek mythology.

     The painting depicts Phaeton the son of the sun-god Helios. Helios was responsible for driving his four horse, golden chariot (the sun) across the sky daily. Phaeton convinced his skeptic father to let him drive the sun across the sky for one day, but without the skill needed Phaeton was soon in trouble. Sebastiano’s painting conveys the climatic moment of this trouble when Phaeton loses the reins of his horses and control of the chariot, putting the earth in danger of catching fire. A thunderbolt is sent by Zeus to kill Phaeton and prevent earth from being destroyed. The highlights and shadows of this piece is what really attracted me at first glance. It is almost as if the viewer is the light source, everything is illuminated directly in front and the shadows intensify as the forms recede into the background giving the audience center stage in the divine story.

      Being half Greek myself I have always had an interest in Greek mythology and this has become a favorite story of mine, not because of the story so much but the painting that I now found to accompany it.

This painting is what I see as a perfect depiction of the original Myth and the perspective of the chariot falling and Phaeton tumbling out is amazing to me. While this Myth has been translated into paintings before Ricci’s time and after, none of them show the bright realism that I see in Ricci’s work.

      It was painted between 1703-04 with oil on canvas. It is one of the only depictions I saw that was close up and clear to the drama of the story. I find it amazing and daring the angles that Phaeton used, if Zeus was taken out of this painting it would be difficult to understand witch way is up and down. The horses are painted at such extreme positions it is amazing they still read as real. The realism of not only the horses but the body of Phaeton and the perspective in witch they fall is amazing to me. The soft mix of warm colors in the middle of the painting surrounded by very faint cool colors of the sky keep the viewers attention in on the characters and reveal the tension that had just taken place or is taking place at that very moment. It was very difficult to find scholarly descriptions and interpretations of this painting but I feel as if it quite literal to the story. This is one of the reasons I chose this painting, It is not so much a mystery with hidden meanings but a very good depiction of a very important Greek myth that teaches us not to overreach our own skill level. And if we do, hopefully we are able to stop our over confident selves before we set fire to our world.

David, Before and After

The Baroque movement brought out the drama in the art of its time. Unlike renaissance art, the baroque style brought about the depiction of the most intense moment of a given scenario, while still holding on to some of the renaissance ideals, like perfect form and realism. While the Baroque period still resembled and imitated many ideas of the renaissance it is easy to see that the subject matter and portrayal was taken to a new level during this movement. I will be comparing two sculptors depicting the biblical hero David to breakdown the differences and similarities in these two time periods of art.

I will begin with Michaelangelo’s David. Still viewed as a masterpiece in Renaissance art, the sculptor is perfect in scale and form. Michaelangelo received much deserved attention for this piece, for one reason. this was one of the first times David was depicted without Goliath. It shows David before the impossible battle and opens an entire new perspective on the story. It is a sculptor meant to show the seconds before the battle with Goliath and in every detail that anticipation comes to life. This sculptor holds dear the original ideals of the renaissance, in pure subject matter it is able to solute the humanistic style. The expression on David’s face is very tense and concentrated. The contrapposto position he was made to stand is very relaxed, while his tense neck and muscles hint at the battle to come. In every detail Michaelangelo tried to show David seconds before he fights a much larger and stronger opponent for his life. This is what was great about renaissance art, it brought you to the moment before the action took place, the moment of contemplation. The baroque period shoved the actual dramatized climax of the moment in the viewers face.

This can be seen in the many differences between Michaelangelo’s David and Bernini’s Sculptor of David. It is obvious the two sculptors are very different after the first glance. It all comes down to what each artist was trying to portray, and those are two very different things in this case. Bernini, working in the baroque movement, was focused on depicting the climax of the story rather then anything else. This means intense poses where action and ending are both implied. It was not good enough to show David before his battle nor was it enough to show him at some random point in the battle. This sculptor of David implies nothing less then the actual moment of David’s final blow to Goliath. What I find interesting is that like Michaelangelo’s David there is no representation of Goliath, something that is not usually left out in the depictions of this biblical legend, revealing the humanist ideals that are still evident in both of these sculptors and times. After that, other then the quality and craftsmanship the similarities between these two sculptors are few and far between. I enjoy Bernini’s sculptor because it seems to try and be the opposite of Michaelangelo’s. It shows an entire knew perspective of not just the hero standing awaiting the fight of his life, or even just the fight taking place but the pose of the contorted human figure of David winding up to throw his final blow to Goliath (who is not mortal enough to be shown.) While Michaelangelo;’s David is only standing in a slightly contrapposto stance, Bernini figure is depicted in such a manipulated way it holds so much more gravity and space, reminding the viewers it is three dimensional and inviting them to rally all around David.

I really enjoyed both of these Sculptors and find it to be one of the best blunt comparisons I have come across. Both Sculptors have similarities in quality and form and I cannot help but feel as if they belong next to each other, or at least are able to be read together as if a story line. While the differences in content between these two sculptors may only be a few seconds apart in the story of David the difference in style of these two time periods is what sets these two pieces apart and at the same time is what allows them to be read together.

Protestant Reformation

     The protestant reformation was a tense time in Europe and split the people and artists of the time. It was a time when the focus may have shifted from God or the divine to man or morality. It was not a loss, or less focus on religion, for most artists and art observers it was shift from one holy and perfect subject of the church and Christ to another discovered, humans and the everyday. Still assured with perfection and divine, the everyday scenarios were held in high esteem and began to show power in the subtle acts of Christ rather than Christ himself. This was a very dramatic change from what has been seen in Europe before this time and while many tried to hold on to the perfect and humanist approach, many others shifted gears and opened an entire new era in art.

      So where does the subject matter go when religion is not an obligated one any longer? Well, this question freed artists during the time, to paint what ever they saw as a strong composition. Many artists turned to landscapes or other media like engravings or sculpture. It is interesting how one of the main changes the reformation had in Europe was the down spiral of religiose paintings but that may not have been the way many artists saw it. While the paintings may have been taking on more subtle forms and subject matter it does not say the painters or viewers of the art saw anything less then God and the divine in the art. While a landscape may not shout with holy matter it could present it in a different way, something that takes a little more thought to discovery then the former blunt and in your face religious subject matter.

     Peasant wedding
c. 1568 (150 Kb); Oil on wood, 114 x 164 cm (45 x 64 1/2 in); Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna
        Peter Bruegel is one of these Artists who’s work was focused more on the everyday living and environment rather then religion in a literal and confronting sense. While a lot of his work did consciously depict religious characters and symbols, they were always surrounded by a vast landscape or other everyday scenario's that camoflaged the religious forms in and blended the subjects together. Bruegel paved the way for many other landscape artists and painters that also produced work that were void of the humanistic, religious and classical components and yet still brought a new and deeply connecting subject matter to the people. No longer was it one religious figure confronting the viewer after the other. Instead, it was the discovery in every new painting, print and sculpture of how these everyday and presumably subtle scenarios in art can be connected between our own morality and Gods divine creation of it all.

Vibrant Subtlety

I decided to compare and analyze Bronzino’s Allegory with Venus and Cupid along with Parmigianino’s Madonna with the Long Neck. Both of these paintings are innovative and amazing for there time. Bronzinos painting is very bizarre in the way it holds true to the mannerist style while Madonna with the Long Neck subtly shows off its exaggeration in form and content without being uncomfortable for the viewer.

         What I first enjoyed and studied during my first look at the painting Allegory with Venus and Cupid was the colors. Almost every figure had a very dull, unrealistic skin tone that made them look almost as ghosts, yet everything else in the scene seemed to be very colorful and vibrant. It was all down hill after that, every object and figure my eye stopped at was a very drastic change from what I have seen in the Early and high renaissance. Unity between the subjects was relevant but there was no unity that brought the scene completely together. It seemed almost as if there were multiple compositions put together almost as a collage, even the expressions and mood shifts from figure to figure. But in terms of form, scale and proportion, this work seems very realistic; this is one key difference between it and Parmigianino’s piece Madonna with the long Neck.

            Parmigianino did not blast the canvas with vibrant color, nor did he ignore the connection between the characters within his work. This painting seems very close to a classical renaissance piece but it cannot be said to be realistic witch traps it in the Mannerist style. Oddly the first thing I recalled from this painting was the man in the background. The use of putting a figure that far back opens the entire painting up and hinted my eye of the manipulation to come, as did the title. Mary and the angels are painted in a very realistic skin tone while the baby has a very light tint to his skin like Bronsino’s painting. The direct lighting seems to be giving the giant baby the ghostly shade and does Mannerist’s to reveal importance as if theaters spot light use a common effect. While this work is not quite bizarre and confrontational it still holds an essence of eerie, especially with the small but noticeable exaggerations of Mary and the babies form. The long neck, large legs and giant baby hold the viewer to ask why. But at the same time the painting had unity. Other then the background character trapped in the depth of the canvas, every angel was locked on Mary and Mary to the baby in her lap. 

               Both of these paintings hold there own essence of the mannerist style. One does it with subtle alterations in form and lighting, while Bronzino’s bluntly scatters the canvas with intense color and isolated subjects. These two pieces are very innovative and important both for the time they were created and even now. I find it to be very important that these two artists along with countless others stepped back from the classical appeal of the realistic and perfect and found power in symbolism and extravagance. 

Early vs. High

     I decided to analyze and compare the painting Madonna of the Harpies by Andrea del Sarto from the high renaissance, to the early renaissance painting Sacred and Profane Love by Titian. Both of these paintings are still held in high regard and share a certain esthetic from the period they were established. It takes an easy eye to find many similarities between these two pieces, differences however, could take a bit deeper of a look to discover but as I will show are very present as well.

       Sacred and Profane Love is a painting over flowing with symbolism, story and maybe even secrets. Art critics have declared many different interpretations of the two women, the baby angel (Cupid) and countless other subjects within the painting. Even without a relevant story, without a resemblance or knowledge of characters, this painting still amazes me. This is the first of the two paintings that I gazed at and with dynamic unity fresh in my mind, the energy and movement was highlighted on the painting right away and littered my view with neon colors. Everything from Cupid’s hand submerged into the water to the nude women in a contrapposto stance reaching one arm out into the air. Even the women’s hand sitting down is placed in an un-rested position and brings energy to the atmosphere. While each individual has there own unique movement it was not until I spent some time with the high renaissance painting Madonna of Harpies that I realized the interaction of this energy that each character holds is what was missing in Titian’s piece.

       In Modanna of Harpies, I went through somewhat of the same discovery of action in the painting but it was not entirely the same,. It seemed as if everything in the painting was composed to support everything else and after viewing it once I felt as if every unique detail was just as important to the piece as was the paint on the canvas. This painting truly brought to light the dynamic unity implemented during the high renaissance and the impact it has on the composition and the viewer. The Saints that surround the Virgin Mary are placed and shaded in a sense of protection. The subtle details of one’s foot risen up on the alter and the others body facing Mary shows the energy they share. But the most impressive form of dynamic unity is the interaction between the Virgin Mary, the child in her arms and the angels that cling to her. While these are all separate subjects they are all viewed as the same dynamic form in this painting. The angels are not merely reaching out for Mary but clinging to her as if they share the same force.

         These two paintings are both so similar and so unique at the same time. It was amazing to see how every decision that made each of these paintings can be traced back to a reason, a chance, and a time period. Even more amazing is the thought of what each of those decisions could have meant for the current era of art and what decisions made today will do for tomorrows angels.

Dead Christ

I decided to analyze the painting “The Lamentation of Christ “or, “Dead Christ” by Andea Mantegna for a few special reasons. It is a very abrupt and emotional piece at first glance but is very reflective and dense at the same time. The perception Mantegna used for the painting was very confronting and period. The colors used are dull but realistic and not straying too far from monochromatic witch I have been finding a lot in the dull and dark renaissance paintings I have been enjoying. I like this painting for its overall layout and composition the most, but all the small subtleties, the emotional expressions, the linear perspective used to show all of Christ’s body. It all comes together and delivers an epic and very unique piece, especially for the time period.

            The way that Christ is set up in the painting is not entirely realistic which is odd for that time where the more precise in scale and form your painting was the more style you seemed to have. After discovering my own focal point of the painting being Christ’s stomach and chest I moved toward the wounds on his hands and finally his feet. Something wasn’t right about his feet, they were too small for the perspective to fit. After, I read about how Mantegna did not want his feet to overpower the rest of the painting so he decided to keep them smaller. These are the little choices that I believe make paintings unique especially when they are decided in a time where they have yet to be judged. Every small choice used today in art can be traced back to, at one point being an invention. The Renaissance was a time of the most artistic inventors.

            The colors used in this painting are very natural and warm colors. They show a lot of emotion in them and are used well to bring out that emotion especially in the reds and violets of the faces.  The lines in the piece really pull the viewer in the main subject of Christ. Every other subject has very subtle lines and trapped in between horizontal and vertical. But the lines surrounding Christ are crisp and straight and box him and the viewer’s eyes, in at him.

            The detail and attention to the light and shadows of the environment are very period for this painting. Even with the dull warm colors are bent and bruised to shadows without giving up detail in return.  I would not be surprised to learn that this paintings placement was decided and taken into account before it was even started. My eye traveled around this painting following the light and digging itself out of shadows finally and inevitable ended on Christ’s face. While this seems like it might be the first thing the viewer would look at, for me every little subtlety of line color and light, led me to rest my eyes on Christ’s face.  After collecting all the emotion and passion from everything around him the painting ends for me on a dead, motionless body of Christ. 

Northern Renaissance Art

To me it is both very amazing and expected that the advent of not only a new style of painting beyond realistic detail but a new kind of artist would change the art world to the degree it has. An artist that takes painting to a new level in both his own mind and in the mind of the rest world.  This technique of making fiction not only seem real but hold weight and gravity as they put it changed the way the public saw art. They were no longer merely able to look at art but experience it.  Van Eyck was so detailed in not only his technique but also his materials his use of light and shadows and his details to give every composition, every piece, and every form in them an identity. One that could be related to, watched and even seem to change.

            Style at this time meant everything, not only the style of a painting but of clothes, jewels, and tapestries. The style of a person or object a person owned resembled them personally.  This is why Van Eyck’s portraits were so sought after. I find it interesting that if I wanted a self-portrait it would be quite easy and inexpensive to find at the current moment. But back then as it is now, the subject does not make the painting the painter makes the subject. It was a time of elegance for the rich, in everything they encountered. And a portrait back, then done by Van Eyck, would spell out royalty, elegance, or wealth. In the documentary they were referring to the Duke of Burgundy and described his food, as well as everything he surrounded himself with “long to prepare and short to consume”. This description caught my ear as easily applied to Van Eyck’s painting style. His work was beyond tedious and was a lengthy process to get the detail and genuine color he needed to capture from his head. Yet it was very quickly consumed, realized and understood in a literal sense, because his forms were so life like.

These paintings were not only seen as works of art but precious religious artifacts, Van Eyck’s paintings were broken apart and hidden around Europe, they were both stolen and protected not for there worth in currency but in there realistic hope and innovation. He was praised as having secret powers in his techniques of painting and was even accredited at one point of inventing oil paint.  That alone is an indicator on how people viewed Van Eyck at the time and how his work not only changed art but also changed the attitude of people viewing art around the world. It was no longer a singular experience, no longer just about the aesthetic beauty, Van Eyck put a mirror in front of us with every piece he birthed.

Northern Renaissance art was work of elegance and commitment, Van Eyck was an Artist of purity and innovation, and he brought a movement to art that needed no other backup then his own materials and pieces. It was said in the documentary how Van Eyck was able to depict the infinite. It is amazing that it took only one artist to bring art to life for a world of people and make it a mortal experience that will be protected cherished and referenced until the end.