ID
stringlengths 6
8
| title
stringlengths 3
136
| question
stringlengths 33
235
| answer
stringlengths 51
15.3k
| image_url
stringlengths 57
817
| entities
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
13601_T
|
The Drive (Thomson)
|
Explore the abstract of this artwork, The Drive (Thomson).
|
The Drive is an oil-on-canvas painting of 1916–17 by the Canadian artist Tom Thomson. It depicts the logging industry in Algonquin Park. A frequent subject of Thomson's work, the painting shows timbermen directing sawn logs down a canal towards the Ottawa River. It was based on sketches of Thomson's composed while he was a fire ranger in the park.
|
[
"Ottawa River",
"oil-on-canvas",
"Tom Thomson",
"Algonquin Park"
] |
|
13601_NT
|
The Drive (Thomson)
|
Explore the abstract of this artwork.
|
The Drive is an oil-on-canvas painting of 1916–17 by the Canadian artist Tom Thomson. It depicts the logging industry in Algonquin Park. A frequent subject of Thomson's work, the painting shows timbermen directing sawn logs down a canal towards the Ottawa River. It was based on sketches of Thomson's composed while he was a fire ranger in the park.
|
[
"Ottawa River",
"oil-on-canvas",
"Tom Thomson",
"Algonquin Park"
] |
|
13602_T
|
Statue of Robert Baden-Powell, Poole
|
Focus on Statue of Robert Baden-Powell, Poole and discuss the abstract.
|
A statue of Robert Baden-Powell, founder of Scouting, is installed on the Quay in Poole harbour, Dorset on the south coast of England. The statue, erected in 2008, is a life-size bronze of Robert Baden-Powell by sculptor David Annand. It portrays Baden-Powell in his scout uniform, seated on a log as if for a campfire, with a pair of log seats either side which "allow easy access for photo opportunities".
|
[
"Robert Baden-Powell",
"Scouting",
"bronze",
"campfire",
"Dorset",
"David Annand",
"Poole",
"scout"
] |
|
13602_NT
|
Statue of Robert Baden-Powell, Poole
|
Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract.
|
A statue of Robert Baden-Powell, founder of Scouting, is installed on the Quay in Poole harbour, Dorset on the south coast of England. The statue, erected in 2008, is a life-size bronze of Robert Baden-Powell by sculptor David Annand. It portrays Baden-Powell in his scout uniform, seated on a log as if for a campfire, with a pair of log seats either side which "allow easy access for photo opportunities".
|
[
"Robert Baden-Powell",
"Scouting",
"bronze",
"campfire",
"Dorset",
"David Annand",
"Poole",
"scout"
] |
|
13603_T
|
Snowy Owl (Audubon)
|
How does Snowy Owl (Audubon) elucidate its Background publication history?
|
Though Audubon typically used oil colours, for this piece he used watercolours and pastel crayons (and occasionally pencil, charcoal, chalk, gouache, and pen and ink). His first depiction of the snowy owl was done in pastels in 1809. The Snowy Owl was part of the original edition of The Birds of America (sometimes called the Havell Edition after its printer, and sometimes called the "Double Elephant Folio", because of its size). It was printed on handmade paper 39.5 inches tall by 28.5 inches wide (100.3 × 72.4 cm). The principal printing technique was copperplate etching, but engraving and aquatint were also used. Colourists applied each colour in an assembly-line fashion (over fifty were hired for the work). He was able to sell the Snowy Owl engravings to his wealthy patrons as part of The Birds of America.Audubon described the snowy owl in his Ornithological Biographies, which he wrote with Scottish naturalist and ornithologist William MacGillivray. Part of his role as a naturalist was his examination of the stomach contents of owls. As was his habit, Audubon included his assessment of the owl's use as a food source. He stated that snowy owls were "not indelicate eating".
|
[
"chalk",
"oil colours",
"snowy owl",
"handmade paper",
"aquatint",
"examination",
"pastel crayons",
"naturalist",
"assembly-line",
"engraving",
"The Birds of America",
"William MacGillivray",
"\"Double Elephant Folio\"",
"watercolours",
"charcoal",
"gouache",
"printing",
"ornithologist",
"copper",
"copperplate"
] |
|
13603_NT
|
Snowy Owl (Audubon)
|
How does this artwork elucidate its Background publication history?
|
Though Audubon typically used oil colours, for this piece he used watercolours and pastel crayons (and occasionally pencil, charcoal, chalk, gouache, and pen and ink). His first depiction of the snowy owl was done in pastels in 1809. The Snowy Owl was part of the original edition of The Birds of America (sometimes called the Havell Edition after its printer, and sometimes called the "Double Elephant Folio", because of its size). It was printed on handmade paper 39.5 inches tall by 28.5 inches wide (100.3 × 72.4 cm). The principal printing technique was copperplate etching, but engraving and aquatint were also used. Colourists applied each colour in an assembly-line fashion (over fifty were hired for the work). He was able to sell the Snowy Owl engravings to his wealthy patrons as part of The Birds of America.Audubon described the snowy owl in his Ornithological Biographies, which he wrote with Scottish naturalist and ornithologist William MacGillivray. Part of his role as a naturalist was his examination of the stomach contents of owls. As was his habit, Audubon included his assessment of the owl's use as a food source. He stated that snowy owls were "not indelicate eating".
|
[
"chalk",
"oil colours",
"snowy owl",
"handmade paper",
"aquatint",
"examination",
"pastel crayons",
"naturalist",
"assembly-line",
"engraving",
"The Birds of America",
"William MacGillivray",
"\"Double Elephant Folio\"",
"watercolours",
"charcoal",
"gouache",
"printing",
"ornithologist",
"copper",
"copperplate"
] |
|
13604_T
|
Snowy Owl (Audubon)
|
Focus on Snowy Owl (Audubon) and analyze the Critique.
|
One art historian described the piece, as an image that depicts the owls as "...gazing directly into the eyes of the observer." The owls stand out from their dark background, as a developing winter storm is seen behind them. Though Audubon depicted the birds perched on the branch of the tree, the owls do not typically use trees as perches since much of their hunting ground is tundra and lacks trees. The female bird is realistically displayed as being larger than the male.
|
[
"tundra",
"hunting"
] |
|
13604_NT
|
Snowy Owl (Audubon)
|
Focus on this artwork and analyze the Critique.
|
One art historian described the piece, as an image that depicts the owls as "...gazing directly into the eyes of the observer." The owls stand out from their dark background, as a developing winter storm is seen behind them. Though Audubon depicted the birds perched on the branch of the tree, the owls do not typically use trees as perches since much of their hunting ground is tundra and lacks trees. The female bird is realistically displayed as being larger than the male.
|
[
"tundra",
"hunting"
] |
|
13605_T
|
Snowy Owl (Audubon)
|
In Snowy Owl (Audubon), how is the Public exhibitions discussed?
|
The Snowy Owl engraving has displayed individually and as part of exhibitions of The Birds of America by the following organizations:University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Louisiana State University
University of Pittsburgh
Teylers Museum
New-York Historical Society
|
[
"University of Michigan",
"University of Michigan, Ann Arbor",
"University of Pittsburgh",
"engraving",
"The Birds of America",
"Teylers Museum",
"New-York Historical Society",
"Louisiana State University"
] |
|
13605_NT
|
Snowy Owl (Audubon)
|
In this artwork, how is the Public exhibitions discussed?
|
The Snowy Owl engraving has displayed individually and as part of exhibitions of The Birds of America by the following organizations:University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Louisiana State University
University of Pittsburgh
Teylers Museum
New-York Historical Society
|
[
"University of Michigan",
"University of Michigan, Ann Arbor",
"University of Pittsburgh",
"engraving",
"The Birds of America",
"Teylers Museum",
"New-York Historical Society",
"Louisiana State University"
] |
|
13606_T
|
Snowy Owl (Audubon)
|
Focus on Snowy Owl (Audubon) and explore the Collections and archives.
|
The Darlington Collection
Meisei University
Trinity College
|
[
"The Darlington Collection",
"Darlington Collection",
"Meisei University",
"Trinity College"
] |
|
13606_NT
|
Snowy Owl (Audubon)
|
Focus on this artwork and explore the Collections and archives.
|
The Darlington Collection
Meisei University
Trinity College
|
[
"The Darlington Collection",
"Darlington Collection",
"Meisei University",
"Trinity College"
] |
|
13607_T
|
Saint Agatha (Zurbarán)
|
Focus on Saint Agatha (Zurbarán) and explain the abstract.
|
Saint Agatha is a 1630–1633 painting by Francisco de Zurbarán, bought by the French town of Montpellier in 1852 for 1540 francs and now in the city's Musée Fabre.
|
[
"Musée Fabre",
"Montpellier",
"Francisco de Zurbarán"
] |
|
13607_NT
|
Saint Agatha (Zurbarán)
|
Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract.
|
Saint Agatha is a 1630–1633 painting by Francisco de Zurbarán, bought by the French town of Montpellier in 1852 for 1540 francs and now in the city's Musée Fabre.
|
[
"Musée Fabre",
"Montpellier",
"Francisco de Zurbarán"
] |
|
13608_T
|
(Here I Stand) In the Spirit of Paul Robeson
|
Explore the abstract of this artwork, (Here I Stand) In the Spirit of Paul Robeson.
|
(Here I Stand) in the Spirit of Paul Robeson is a public artwork by American artist Allen Uzikee Nelson, located at the intersection of Kansas Ave NW, Georgia Ave NW and Varnum St NW in the Petworth neighborhood in Washington, D.C., United States. It is a tribute to musician, actor, and social activist Paul Robeson.
|
[
"Paul Robeson",
"American",
"Washington, D.C.",
"Georgia Ave NW",
"United States",
"Petworth neighborhood",
"Allen Uzikee Nelson"
] |
|
13608_NT
|
(Here I Stand) In the Spirit of Paul Robeson
|
Explore the abstract of this artwork.
|
(Here I Stand) in the Spirit of Paul Robeson is a public artwork by American artist Allen Uzikee Nelson, located at the intersection of Kansas Ave NW, Georgia Ave NW and Varnum St NW in the Petworth neighborhood in Washington, D.C., United States. It is a tribute to musician, actor, and social activist Paul Robeson.
|
[
"Paul Robeson",
"American",
"Washington, D.C.",
"Georgia Ave NW",
"United States",
"Petworth neighborhood",
"Allen Uzikee Nelson"
] |
|
13609_T
|
(Here I Stand) In the Spirit of Paul Robeson
|
Focus on (Here I Stand) In the Spirit of Paul Robeson and discuss the Acquisition.
|
The piece was formally dedicated on April 8, 2001, to celebrate the 103rd anniversary of Paul Robeson's birthday.
|
[
"Paul Robeson"
] |
|
13609_NT
|
(Here I Stand) In the Spirit of Paul Robeson
|
Focus on this artwork and discuss the Acquisition.
|
The piece was formally dedicated on April 8, 2001, to celebrate the 103rd anniversary of Paul Robeson's birthday.
|
[
"Paul Robeson"
] |
|
13610_T
|
Moses Striking the Rock
|
How does Moses Striking the Rock elucidate its abstract?
|
Moses Striking the Rock is a late 16th century painting by Dutch artist Abraham Bloemaert. Done in oil on canvas, the work depicts a scene from the Old Testament in which the prophet Moses strikes the grounds to draw forth water for the Israelites. The painting is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
|
[
"Israelites",
"Moses",
"Old Testament",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art",
"Abraham Bloemaert"
] |
|
13610_NT
|
Moses Striking the Rock
|
How does this artwork elucidate its abstract?
|
Moses Striking the Rock is a late 16th century painting by Dutch artist Abraham Bloemaert. Done in oil on canvas, the work depicts a scene from the Old Testament in which the prophet Moses strikes the grounds to draw forth water for the Israelites. The painting is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
|
[
"Israelites",
"Moses",
"Old Testament",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art",
"Abraham Bloemaert"
] |
|
13611_T
|
Moses Striking the Rock
|
Focus on Moses Striking the Rock and analyze the Description.
|
Bloemaert's painting features many hallmarks of Late Renaissance Mannerism, of which movement the Dutch artist was a part. The figures seen in Moses are preternaturally muscled, and have noble bearings. These depictions were inspired by contemporary Italian art.
|
[
"Moses",
"Mannerism"
] |
|
13611_NT
|
Moses Striking the Rock
|
Focus on this artwork and analyze the Description.
|
Bloemaert's painting features many hallmarks of Late Renaissance Mannerism, of which movement the Dutch artist was a part. The figures seen in Moses are preternaturally muscled, and have noble bearings. These depictions were inspired by contemporary Italian art.
|
[
"Moses",
"Mannerism"
] |
|
13612_T
|
Queen Alexandra Memorial
|
In Queen Alexandra Memorial, how is the abstract discussed?
|
The Queen Alexandra Memorial on Marlborough Road, London, which commemorates Queen Alexandra, was executed by the sculptor Sir Alfred Gilbert between 1926 and 1932. It consists of a bronze screen incorporating allegorical figures, set into the garden wall of Marlborough House and facing St James's Palace. A late example of a work in the Art Nouveau style, it was regarded by the sculptor as his "Swan song".Before 1926 Gilbert was living in exile abroad, having fled Britain in 1901 bankrupt and disgraced after failing to complete the tomb of the Duke of Clarence in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. Gilbert later claimed that the Duke's mother, Princess Alexandra (Queen Alexandra after her husband's accession to the throne as Edward VII), was the only member of the royal family who supported him after this debacle. She is also supposed to have expressed a wish in her old age that Gilbert might execute her memorial, should he outlive her.In 1926 Gilbert was invited to return to Britain, a result of the machinations of his biographer, the journalist Isabel McAllister. She had the twofold aim of getting Gilbert to complete the Clarence tomb (which he had succeeded in doing by 1928) and to receive the commission for a memorial to Queen Alexandra, who had died the previous year. The artist Lady Helena Gleichen offered her studio in St James's Palace for Gilbert's use. The Committee to Erect a Memorial to Queen Alexandra was set up in late 1926 and approached Gilbert in December of that year.The symbolism of the central sculptural group is explained by Gilbert in an "exegesis" he prepared for the committee in 1927:Central Group—represents "Love Enthroned", supported by Faith and Hope, on either side, and Love is directing a Boy sent out across the "River of Life", which springs from beneath Her Throne—symbolizing Queen Alexandra's charity to Children, also the water typifies Her advent to Great Britain from across the water.
The composition is in a style adapted from Perpendicular Gothic architecture, with three buttressed and pinnacled canopies over the figures and linenfold motifs on the screen. Two further allegorical statuettes appear on finials on the throne, that on the left representing Religion and the other without an attribute to help with identification, though Truth has been proposed as its subject.The two main inscriptions read QUEEN ALEXANDRA/ 1844 A TRIBUTE TO THE EMPIRE'S LOVE 1925 (on the bronze base) and FAITH, HOPE, LOVE./ THE GUIDING VIRTUES OF QUEEN ALEXANDRA (on the granite base below). A further inscription at the side of the bronze base reads A. B. BURTON. FOUNDER.The memorial was cast by A. B. Burton at the Thames Ditton Foundry. It was unveiled on 8 June 1932 (Alexandra Rose Day) by George V. At the unveiling ceremony the memorial was blessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Gordon Lang, and the choir of the Chapel Royal gave the first performance of Queen Alexandra's Memorial Ode, which had been composed for the occasion by the Master of the King's Music, Sir Edward Elgar, with lyrics by the Poet Laureate, John Masefield. On the following day Gilbert received his knighthood from the King at Buckingham Palace. The memorial was Gilbert's last completed public artwork, as he died in November 1934.
|
[
"Alexandra Rose Day",
"John Masefield",
"linenfold",
"Master of the King's Music",
"Duke of Clarence",
"Archbishop of Canterbury",
"A. B. Burton",
"Marlborough House",
"Poet Laureate",
"Thames Ditton Foundry",
"Memorial",
"St George's Chapel",
"Edward VII",
"Alfred Gilbert",
"Edward Elgar",
"Swan song",
"Chapel Royal",
"Buckingham Palace",
"Queen Alexandra",
"George V",
"St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle",
"Lady Helena Gleichen",
"Perpendicular Gothic",
"Windsor Castle",
"London",
"Queen Alexandra's Memorial Ode",
"exegesis",
"Art Nouveau",
"St James's Palace",
"Cosmo Gordon Lang"
] |
|
13612_NT
|
Queen Alexandra Memorial
|
In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed?
|
The Queen Alexandra Memorial on Marlborough Road, London, which commemorates Queen Alexandra, was executed by the sculptor Sir Alfred Gilbert between 1926 and 1932. It consists of a bronze screen incorporating allegorical figures, set into the garden wall of Marlborough House and facing St James's Palace. A late example of a work in the Art Nouveau style, it was regarded by the sculptor as his "Swan song".Before 1926 Gilbert was living in exile abroad, having fled Britain in 1901 bankrupt and disgraced after failing to complete the tomb of the Duke of Clarence in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. Gilbert later claimed that the Duke's mother, Princess Alexandra (Queen Alexandra after her husband's accession to the throne as Edward VII), was the only member of the royal family who supported him after this debacle. She is also supposed to have expressed a wish in her old age that Gilbert might execute her memorial, should he outlive her.In 1926 Gilbert was invited to return to Britain, a result of the machinations of his biographer, the journalist Isabel McAllister. She had the twofold aim of getting Gilbert to complete the Clarence tomb (which he had succeeded in doing by 1928) and to receive the commission for a memorial to Queen Alexandra, who had died the previous year. The artist Lady Helena Gleichen offered her studio in St James's Palace for Gilbert's use. The Committee to Erect a Memorial to Queen Alexandra was set up in late 1926 and approached Gilbert in December of that year.The symbolism of the central sculptural group is explained by Gilbert in an "exegesis" he prepared for the committee in 1927:Central Group—represents "Love Enthroned", supported by Faith and Hope, on either side, and Love is directing a Boy sent out across the "River of Life", which springs from beneath Her Throne—symbolizing Queen Alexandra's charity to Children, also the water typifies Her advent to Great Britain from across the water.
The composition is in a style adapted from Perpendicular Gothic architecture, with three buttressed and pinnacled canopies over the figures and linenfold motifs on the screen. Two further allegorical statuettes appear on finials on the throne, that on the left representing Religion and the other without an attribute to help with identification, though Truth has been proposed as its subject.The two main inscriptions read QUEEN ALEXANDRA/ 1844 A TRIBUTE TO THE EMPIRE'S LOVE 1925 (on the bronze base) and FAITH, HOPE, LOVE./ THE GUIDING VIRTUES OF QUEEN ALEXANDRA (on the granite base below). A further inscription at the side of the bronze base reads A. B. BURTON. FOUNDER.The memorial was cast by A. B. Burton at the Thames Ditton Foundry. It was unveiled on 8 June 1932 (Alexandra Rose Day) by George V. At the unveiling ceremony the memorial was blessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Gordon Lang, and the choir of the Chapel Royal gave the first performance of Queen Alexandra's Memorial Ode, which had been composed for the occasion by the Master of the King's Music, Sir Edward Elgar, with lyrics by the Poet Laureate, John Masefield. On the following day Gilbert received his knighthood from the King at Buckingham Palace. The memorial was Gilbert's last completed public artwork, as he died in November 1934.
|
[
"Alexandra Rose Day",
"John Masefield",
"linenfold",
"Master of the King's Music",
"Duke of Clarence",
"Archbishop of Canterbury",
"A. B. Burton",
"Marlborough House",
"Poet Laureate",
"Thames Ditton Foundry",
"Memorial",
"St George's Chapel",
"Edward VII",
"Alfred Gilbert",
"Edward Elgar",
"Swan song",
"Chapel Royal",
"Buckingham Palace",
"Queen Alexandra",
"George V",
"St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle",
"Lady Helena Gleichen",
"Perpendicular Gothic",
"Windsor Castle",
"London",
"Queen Alexandra's Memorial Ode",
"exegesis",
"Art Nouveau",
"St James's Palace",
"Cosmo Gordon Lang"
] |
|
13613_T
|
The White Apple Tree
|
Focus on The White Apple Tree and explore the abstract.
|
White Apple Tree (Lithuanian: Baltoji obelis) is a 1932 painting by the Lithuanian artist Antanas Samuolis.
|
[
"Antanas Samuolis",
"Lithuanian"
] |
|
13613_NT
|
The White Apple Tree
|
Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract.
|
White Apple Tree (Lithuanian: Baltoji obelis) is a 1932 painting by the Lithuanian artist Antanas Samuolis.
|
[
"Antanas Samuolis",
"Lithuanian"
] |
|
13614_T
|
The White Apple Tree
|
Focus on The White Apple Tree and explain the Description.
|
The picture is painted in oil on canvas and has dimensions of 89 x 71 cm.
The painting is part of the collection of the Lithuanian Art Museum in Vilnius.
|
[
"Lithuanian Art Museum",
"oil on canvas",
"Lithuanian",
"Vilnius"
] |
|
13614_NT
|
The White Apple Tree
|
Focus on this artwork and explain the Description.
|
The picture is painted in oil on canvas and has dimensions of 89 x 71 cm.
The painting is part of the collection of the Lithuanian Art Museum in Vilnius.
|
[
"Lithuanian Art Museum",
"oil on canvas",
"Lithuanian",
"Vilnius"
] |
|
13615_T
|
Portrait of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire
|
Explore the abstract of this artwork, Portrait of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire.
|
Portrait of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire is a portrait painting by the English painter Thomas Gainsborough of the political hostess Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire. It was painted between 1785 and 1787.
|
[
"Georgiana",
"Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire",
"Thomas Gainsborough"
] |
|
13615_NT
|
Portrait of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire
|
Explore the abstract of this artwork.
|
Portrait of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire is a portrait painting by the English painter Thomas Gainsborough of the political hostess Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire. It was painted between 1785 and 1787.
|
[
"Georgiana",
"Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire",
"Thomas Gainsborough"
] |
|
13616_T
|
Portrait of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire
|
Focus on Portrait of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire and discuss the Background.
|
During her years in the public eye, Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire was painted several times by both Thomas Gainsborough and Joshua Reynolds.
Gainsborough's painting of her around 1785, in a large black hat (a style which she made fashionable, and came to be known as the 'Gainsborough' or 'portrait' hat), has become famous for its history. After having been lost from Chatsworth House for many years, it was discovered in the 1830s in the home of an elderly schoolmistress, who had cut it down somewhat in order to fit it over her fireplace. In 1841 she sold it to a picture dealer for £56, and he later gave it to a friend, the art collector Wynne Ellis. When Ellis died, the painting went for sale at Christie's in London in 1876, where it was bought by the Bond Street art dealer William Agnew for the then astronomical sum of 10,000 guineas, at the time the highest price ever paid for a painting at auction. Three weeks later it was stolen from the London gallery of Thomas Agnew & Sons, a theft that was highly publicised at the time, and for years the newspapers printed stories about claimed sightings of the painting.However, not until 25 years later did it become known that the thief had been the notorious "Napoleon of Crime", Adam Worth. He had intended to sell it to come up with the bail to release his brother from prison, but when his brother was freed without bail, he decided to keep it for himself, for "a rainy day", and brought it to his adopted homeland, the United States. In early 1901, through the American detective agency Pinkerton's, he negotiated a return of the painting to Agnew's son for $25,000. The portrait and payment were exchanged in Chicago in March 1901, and a couple of months later the painting arrived in London and was put up for sale. The Wall Street financier J. P. Morgan immediately travelled to England to obtain the painting and later claimed to have paid $150,000 for it.
The painting remained in Morgan's family until 1994, when it was put up for sale at Sotheby's and was purchased by the 11th Duke of Devonshire for the Chatsworth House collection for $408,870. After more than 200 years, the painting returned to Chatsworth.
|
[
"Bond Street",
"Wynne Ellis",
"J. P. Morgan",
"Georgiana",
"Pinkerton's",
"Chatsworth House",
"Joshua Reynolds",
"Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire",
"Christie's",
"Sotheby's",
"Adam Worth",
"Thomas Gainsborough",
"11th Duke of Devonshire",
"London",
"William Agnew",
"Thomas Agnew & Sons"
] |
|
13616_NT
|
Portrait of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire
|
Focus on this artwork and discuss the Background.
|
During her years in the public eye, Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire was painted several times by both Thomas Gainsborough and Joshua Reynolds.
Gainsborough's painting of her around 1785, in a large black hat (a style which she made fashionable, and came to be known as the 'Gainsborough' or 'portrait' hat), has become famous for its history. After having been lost from Chatsworth House for many years, it was discovered in the 1830s in the home of an elderly schoolmistress, who had cut it down somewhat in order to fit it over her fireplace. In 1841 she sold it to a picture dealer for £56, and he later gave it to a friend, the art collector Wynne Ellis. When Ellis died, the painting went for sale at Christie's in London in 1876, where it was bought by the Bond Street art dealer William Agnew for the then astronomical sum of 10,000 guineas, at the time the highest price ever paid for a painting at auction. Three weeks later it was stolen from the London gallery of Thomas Agnew & Sons, a theft that was highly publicised at the time, and for years the newspapers printed stories about claimed sightings of the painting.However, not until 25 years later did it become known that the thief had been the notorious "Napoleon of Crime", Adam Worth. He had intended to sell it to come up with the bail to release his brother from prison, but when his brother was freed without bail, he decided to keep it for himself, for "a rainy day", and brought it to his adopted homeland, the United States. In early 1901, through the American detective agency Pinkerton's, he negotiated a return of the painting to Agnew's son for $25,000. The portrait and payment were exchanged in Chicago in March 1901, and a couple of months later the painting arrived in London and was put up for sale. The Wall Street financier J. P. Morgan immediately travelled to England to obtain the painting and later claimed to have paid $150,000 for it.
The painting remained in Morgan's family until 1994, when it was put up for sale at Sotheby's and was purchased by the 11th Duke of Devonshire for the Chatsworth House collection for $408,870. After more than 200 years, the painting returned to Chatsworth.
|
[
"Bond Street",
"Wynne Ellis",
"J. P. Morgan",
"Georgiana",
"Pinkerton's",
"Chatsworth House",
"Joshua Reynolds",
"Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire",
"Christie's",
"Sotheby's",
"Adam Worth",
"Thomas Gainsborough",
"11th Duke of Devonshire",
"London",
"William Agnew",
"Thomas Agnew & Sons"
] |
|
13617_T
|
Berry Dress
|
How does Berry Dress elucidate its Description?
|
The sculpture has dimensions 25 x 32 x 24 centimeters. It is in the collection of the Irish Museum of Modern Art, Dublin.
|
[
"Dublin",
"the Irish Museum of Modern Art"
] |
|
13617_NT
|
Berry Dress
|
How does this artwork elucidate its Description?
|
The sculpture has dimensions 25 x 32 x 24 centimeters. It is in the collection of the Irish Museum of Modern Art, Dublin.
|
[
"Dublin",
"the Irish Museum of Modern Art"
] |
|
13618_T
|
Berry Dress
|
Focus on Berry Dress and analyze the Analysis.
|
It represents a young girl's dress painted dark pink, that stands alone on a shelf. It is self-supported due to a wax treatment. The bottom part of the dress just under the yoke is decorated with rose hips, or berries. The dress was created in 1994 and the berries were originally round and a blood red color but have dried into a shriveled brown crust. The dress presents challenges for presentation and preservation, while being itself a commentary on the definition of the term "dress".
Alice Maher's work often incorporates natural materials and this dress can be seen as a pendant of a similar girl's dress presented on a shelf covered in mummified honeybees.When asked about her art, Maher said "...the meaning is changing all the time. This depends on the context, who's looking at it, and how much time has passed. For example with a dress, it meant something completely different perhaps in the 80s than now."
|
[
"rose hip",
"Alice Maher"
] |
|
13618_NT
|
Berry Dress
|
Focus on this artwork and analyze the Analysis.
|
It represents a young girl's dress painted dark pink, that stands alone on a shelf. It is self-supported due to a wax treatment. The bottom part of the dress just under the yoke is decorated with rose hips, or berries. The dress was created in 1994 and the berries were originally round and a blood red color but have dried into a shriveled brown crust. The dress presents challenges for presentation and preservation, while being itself a commentary on the definition of the term "dress".
Alice Maher's work often incorporates natural materials and this dress can be seen as a pendant of a similar girl's dress presented on a shelf covered in mummified honeybees.When asked about her art, Maher said "...the meaning is changing all the time. This depends on the context, who's looking at it, and how much time has passed. For example with a dress, it meant something completely different perhaps in the 80s than now."
|
[
"rose hip",
"Alice Maher"
] |
|
13619_T
|
Death and Fire
|
In Death and Fire, how is the abstract discussed?
|
Death and Fire, known in German as Tod und Feuer, is a 1940 expressionist painting by Paul Klee.
|
[
"expressionist",
"Paul Klee",
"Death"
] |
|
13619_NT
|
Death and Fire
|
In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed?
|
Death and Fire, known in German as Tod und Feuer, is a 1940 expressionist painting by Paul Klee.
|
[
"expressionist",
"Paul Klee",
"Death"
] |
|
13620_T
|
Death and Fire
|
Focus on Death and Fire and explore the Meaning and History.
|
Death and Fire was one of Klee's last paintings before his death on June 29th, 1940. In 1935 Klee started to suffer from scleroderma, which manifested itself with fatigue, skin rashes, difficulty in swallowing, shortness of breath and pain in the joints of his hands. Paintings during this period tended to be simpler and representative of the suffering he was going through. "Tod", the German word for death, is a common motif throughout the painting. It can be seen most distinctly in the features of the face, though the "d" and "t" are rotated. The word can also be seen in the figure's raised arm as the "T", the yellow orb as the "O", and the figure's head (or torso) as the "D".
|
[
"scleroderma",
"Death"
] |
|
13620_NT
|
Death and Fire
|
Focus on this artwork and explore the Meaning and History.
|
Death and Fire was one of Klee's last paintings before his death on June 29th, 1940. In 1935 Klee started to suffer from scleroderma, which manifested itself with fatigue, skin rashes, difficulty in swallowing, shortness of breath and pain in the joints of his hands. Paintings during this period tended to be simpler and representative of the suffering he was going through. "Tod", the German word for death, is a common motif throughout the painting. It can be seen most distinctly in the features of the face, though the "d" and "t" are rotated. The word can also be seen in the figure's raised arm as the "T", the yellow orb as the "O", and the figure's head (or torso) as the "D".
|
[
"scleroderma",
"Death"
] |
|
13621_T
|
Death and Fire
|
Focus on Death and Fire and explain the Hieroglyphics.
|
The painting also represents hieroglyphics, an interest of Klee's during this time, which can also be seen in many of his other late 1930s paintings, such as Insula dulcamara (1938) and Heroische Rosen (1938). As of 2014, it is on display at Zentrum Paul Klee, a museum in Bern, Switzerland that is dedicated to the works of Paul Klee.
|
[
"Switzerland",
"Zentrum Paul Klee",
"Insula dulcamara",
"Paul Klee",
"Bern",
"Heroische Rosen"
] |
|
13621_NT
|
Death and Fire
|
Focus on this artwork and explain the Hieroglyphics.
|
The painting also represents hieroglyphics, an interest of Klee's during this time, which can also be seen in many of his other late 1930s paintings, such as Insula dulcamara (1938) and Heroische Rosen (1938). As of 2014, it is on display at Zentrum Paul Klee, a museum in Bern, Switzerland that is dedicated to the works of Paul Klee.
|
[
"Switzerland",
"Zentrum Paul Klee",
"Insula dulcamara",
"Paul Klee",
"Bern",
"Heroische Rosen"
] |
|
13622_T
|
Woman in a Purple Coat
|
Explore the abstract of this artwork, Woman in a Purple Coat.
|
Woman In A Purple Coat or The Purple Coat is a painting by Henri Matisse from 1937. It depicts Matisse's assistant Lydia Delectorskaya. This painting is an example of Henri Matisse's mature decorative style. Matisse depicts his model and companion of many years, Lydia Delectorskaya, in an exotic Moroccan clothing, surrounded by a complex of abstract design and exotic color. This is an example of one of the final groups of oil paintings in Matisse's career, in 1950 he stopped painting oil paintings in favor of creating paper cutouts.
|
[
"Henri Matisse",
"painting",
"Moroccan",
"Lydia Delectorskaya",
"oil paintings"
] |
|
13622_NT
|
Woman in a Purple Coat
|
Explore the abstract of this artwork.
|
Woman In A Purple Coat or The Purple Coat is a painting by Henri Matisse from 1937. It depicts Matisse's assistant Lydia Delectorskaya. This painting is an example of Henri Matisse's mature decorative style. Matisse depicts his model and companion of many years, Lydia Delectorskaya, in an exotic Moroccan clothing, surrounded by a complex of abstract design and exotic color. This is an example of one of the final groups of oil paintings in Matisse's career, in 1950 he stopped painting oil paintings in favor of creating paper cutouts.
|
[
"Henri Matisse",
"painting",
"Moroccan",
"Lydia Delectorskaya",
"oil paintings"
] |
|
13623_T
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
Focus on Portrait of Jacques Nayral and discuss the abstract.
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral (also known as Portrait de Jacques Nayral) is a large oil painting created in 1911 by the French artist, theorist and writer Albert Gleizes (1881–1953). It was exhibited in Paris at the Salon d'Automne of 1911 (no. 609), the Salon de la Section d'Or, 1912 (no. 38), and reproduced in Du "Cubisme" written by Jean Metzinger and Albert Gleizes in 1912, the first and only manifesto on Cubism. Metzinger in 1911 described Gleizes' painting as 'a great portrait'. Portrait of Jacques Nayral, one of Gleizes' first major Cubist works, while still 'readable' in the figurative or representational sense, exemplifies the mobile, dynamic fragmentation of form characteristic of Cubism at the outset of 1911. Highly sophisticated in theory and in practice, this aspect of simultaneity would soon become identified with the practices of the Section d'Or. Here, Gleizes deploys these techniques in a radical, personal and coherent manner.Jacques Nayral (a pseudonym for Joseph Houot) was a young modernist poet, dramatist, publisher and occasional sports writer, who shared with Gleizes a passion for the theories of Henri Bergson. He was a friend of Gleizes and married his sister Mireille in 1912. Gleizes began work on his portrait in 1910. The interfusion and interrelation between the sitter and the background of the painting reflect Bergson’s concepts about the simultaneity of experience. It was avant-garde works such as this widely exhibited portrait that fed the public outcry against Cubism. "Its scale echoes the large-scale paintings of the official exhibitions, while its style subverts that tradition". (Tate Modern)Purchased in 1979, the painting is exhibited in the permanent collection of the Tate Modern in London.
|
[
"Albert Gleizes",
"avant-garde",
"figurative",
"Tate Modern",
"Cubism",
"Salon d'Automne",
"Du \"Cubisme\"",
"Henri Bergson",
"representational",
"London",
"Jean Metzinger",
"Section d'Or"
] |
|
13623_NT
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract.
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral (also known as Portrait de Jacques Nayral) is a large oil painting created in 1911 by the French artist, theorist and writer Albert Gleizes (1881–1953). It was exhibited in Paris at the Salon d'Automne of 1911 (no. 609), the Salon de la Section d'Or, 1912 (no. 38), and reproduced in Du "Cubisme" written by Jean Metzinger and Albert Gleizes in 1912, the first and only manifesto on Cubism. Metzinger in 1911 described Gleizes' painting as 'a great portrait'. Portrait of Jacques Nayral, one of Gleizes' first major Cubist works, while still 'readable' in the figurative or representational sense, exemplifies the mobile, dynamic fragmentation of form characteristic of Cubism at the outset of 1911. Highly sophisticated in theory and in practice, this aspect of simultaneity would soon become identified with the practices of the Section d'Or. Here, Gleizes deploys these techniques in a radical, personal and coherent manner.Jacques Nayral (a pseudonym for Joseph Houot) was a young modernist poet, dramatist, publisher and occasional sports writer, who shared with Gleizes a passion for the theories of Henri Bergson. He was a friend of Gleizes and married his sister Mireille in 1912. Gleizes began work on his portrait in 1910. The interfusion and interrelation between the sitter and the background of the painting reflect Bergson’s concepts about the simultaneity of experience. It was avant-garde works such as this widely exhibited portrait that fed the public outcry against Cubism. "Its scale echoes the large-scale paintings of the official exhibitions, while its style subverts that tradition". (Tate Modern)Purchased in 1979, the painting is exhibited in the permanent collection of the Tate Modern in London.
|
[
"Albert Gleizes",
"avant-garde",
"figurative",
"Tate Modern",
"Cubism",
"Salon d'Automne",
"Du \"Cubisme\"",
"Henri Bergson",
"representational",
"London",
"Jean Metzinger",
"Section d'Or"
] |
|
13624_T
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
How does Portrait of Jacques Nayral elucidate its Description?
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral is an oil painting on canvas with dimensions 162 x 114 cm (63.8 by 44.9 inches), inscribed ‘Albert Gleizes 1911' (lower right). Studies for this work began in 1910 while the full portrait was completed during the late summer or early fall of 1911. The work represents an old friend of Gleizes, Jacques Nayral; the young author-dramatist who would marry Mireille Gleizes two years later.
Nayral was a partisan of the synthetic-social ideas of the Abbaye, editor-in-chief for the publishing house of Figuière and directly responsible for the publication of Du «Cubisme» as well as for Apollinaire's Les Peintres Cubistes, Méditations Esthétiques and the projected series Tous les Arts. The background of Portrait of Jacques Nayral depicts Gleizes' garden at 24 Avenue Gambetta in Courbevoie, the western banlieue of Paris. Stylistically this painting fulfills the direction established in the unfinished portrait of Mme. Barzun", spring of 1911.(Daniel Robbins, 1964)
A page from the periodical Fantasio, 15 October 1911, features Portrait de Jacques Nayral by Albert Gleizes (1911) and Le goûter (Tea Time) by Jean Metzinger, juxtaposed with images of unidentified models, the man with his knees crossed and a book on his lap, the woman (clothed) holding a spoon and a tea cup, as if the sitters. The commentary by Roland Dorgelès is heavily ironic, with the headline reading Ce que disent les cubes... (What the cubes say...).
The complex forms that defined Metzinger's paintings of the period serve to suggest the underlying imagery (e.g., a nude, a horse, a dancer, a café-concert), rather than define the imagery; arousing the viewer's own creative intuition to decipher the 'total image.' This meant too, inversely, that the creative intuition of the artist would be aroused. No longer did the artist have to define or reproduce, painstakingly, the subject matter of a painting. The artist became to a large extent free, libre, to place lines, shapes, forms and colors onto the canvas in accord with his or her own creative intuition.
|
[
"Daniel Robbins",
"Roland Dorgelès",
"Albert Gleizes",
"banlieue",
"right",
"Cubism",
"Les Peintres Cubistes, Méditations Esthétiques",
"Abbaye",
"Jean Metzinger",
"Le goûter (Tea Time)",
"Courbevoie",
"Du «Cubisme»"
] |
|
13624_NT
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
How does this artwork elucidate its Description?
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral is an oil painting on canvas with dimensions 162 x 114 cm (63.8 by 44.9 inches), inscribed ‘Albert Gleizes 1911' (lower right). Studies for this work began in 1910 while the full portrait was completed during the late summer or early fall of 1911. The work represents an old friend of Gleizes, Jacques Nayral; the young author-dramatist who would marry Mireille Gleizes two years later.
Nayral was a partisan of the synthetic-social ideas of the Abbaye, editor-in-chief for the publishing house of Figuière and directly responsible for the publication of Du «Cubisme» as well as for Apollinaire's Les Peintres Cubistes, Méditations Esthétiques and the projected series Tous les Arts. The background of Portrait of Jacques Nayral depicts Gleizes' garden at 24 Avenue Gambetta in Courbevoie, the western banlieue of Paris. Stylistically this painting fulfills the direction established in the unfinished portrait of Mme. Barzun", spring of 1911.(Daniel Robbins, 1964)
A page from the periodical Fantasio, 15 October 1911, features Portrait de Jacques Nayral by Albert Gleizes (1911) and Le goûter (Tea Time) by Jean Metzinger, juxtaposed with images of unidentified models, the man with his knees crossed and a book on his lap, the woman (clothed) holding a spoon and a tea cup, as if the sitters. The commentary by Roland Dorgelès is heavily ironic, with the headline reading Ce que disent les cubes... (What the cubes say...).
The complex forms that defined Metzinger's paintings of the period serve to suggest the underlying imagery (e.g., a nude, a horse, a dancer, a café-concert), rather than define the imagery; arousing the viewer's own creative intuition to decipher the 'total image.' This meant too, inversely, that the creative intuition of the artist would be aroused. No longer did the artist have to define or reproduce, painstakingly, the subject matter of a painting. The artist became to a large extent free, libre, to place lines, shapes, forms and colors onto the canvas in accord with his or her own creative intuition.
|
[
"Daniel Robbins",
"Roland Dorgelès",
"Albert Gleizes",
"banlieue",
"right",
"Cubism",
"Les Peintres Cubistes, Méditations Esthétiques",
"Abbaye",
"Jean Metzinger",
"Le goûter (Tea Time)",
"Courbevoie",
"Du «Cubisme»"
] |
|
13625_T
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
Focus on Portrait of Jacques Nayral and analyze the Content and form.
|
A similar concept lies behind Albert Gleizes' portrait of his friend, neo-Symbolist writer Joseph Houot, pen name Jacques Nayral, who in 1912 married Mireille Gleizes, the sister of Albert Gleizes. Along with Metzinger's Tea Time, Gleizes' Portrait of Jacques Nayral, painted the same year, exemplifies ideas and opinions formulated between 1910 and 1911 that would soon be codified in Du "Cubisme"; written in 1912 by Metzinger and Gleizes in preparation for the Salon de la Section d'Or, held in October. Du "Cubisme", published by Eugène Figuière, a close associate of Gleizes' friends Jacques Nayral and Alexandre Mercereau, was an attempt to bring together all the progressive tendencies.According to Gleizes, both the content and form in this painting were the result of mind associations as he completed the work from memory; something that would play a crucial role in the works of other Cubists, such as Fernand Léger, Robert Delaunay and Francis Picabia. More so than an 'objective' view of the real-world, Jacques Nayral valorized subjective experience and expression. He and other Symbolist writers embraced an antirationalist and antipositivist world-view, consistent with concepts that underscored Cubist philosophies. Nayral's interest in philosophy led him to correspond with Henri Bergson, someone who would greatly inspire both Metzinger and Gleizes. Nayral's related interest in avant-garde art led him to purchase Metzinger's large 1912 oil on canvas entitled La Femme au Cheval, also known as Woman with a Horse (Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen). Nayral's association with Gleizes led him to write the Preface for the Cubist exhibition at Galeries Dalmau in Barcelona (April–May 2012)The Neo-Symbolist writers Jacques Nayral and Henri-Martin Barzun associated with the Unanimist movement in poetry. In his capacity as Figuière's editorial assistant Nayral had selected Du "Cubisme" and Les Peintres Cubistes, Méditations Esthétiques as part of a projected series on the arts. These writers and other Symbolists valorized expression and subjective experience over an objective view of the physical world.Paul Cézanne's technique of passage, in the Bergsonian sense, was used by the Cubists to stimulate a presentiment, an awareness of the dynamism of form. "Between sculpturally bold reliefs", wrote Gleizes and Metzinger, "let us throw slender shafts which do not define, but which suggest. Certain forms must remain implicit, so that the mind of the spectator is the chosen place of their concrete birth. Let us also contrive to cut by large restful surfaces any area where activity exaggerated by excessive contiguities.
The dynamism of form resides in the unfolding response of both the artist and viewer to the quantitative and qualitative properties of the Cubist artwork. Metzinger's La Femme au Cheval (Woman with a Horse) (1911-12)—illustrated in Du "Cubisme" and owned by the poet Jacques Nayral—is structured according to these principles. The interplay of volumes, lines and planes has been 'abstracted' from the subject matter and spread throughout the composition. These complex geometric forms serve to 'suggest' the underlying imagery rather than to 'define' the subject, allowing the unity of the picture to be established by the viewer's 'creative intuition'.In this portrait, Gleizes was interested in 'equivalences, echoes, interpenetrations [emboîtements], rhythmic correspondences with the surrounding elements—terrain, trees, houses'. He was delighted to paint a portrait of Nayral because his face corresponded well to the solid, faceted, architectural qualities he had sought.In a departure from the static nature of single-point perspective, in his Nayral portrait, as in Le Chemin, Paysage à Meudon (1911), Gleizes simplifies, interpenetrates volumes, fuses the landscape with the model, to form a homogeneous picture. While volumes point is different directions and the subject is seen from several different angles ('multiple perspective') the observer still sees the entire surface of the canvas, preserving unity.Nayral asked Gleizes to paint his portrait in 1910, a task the artist completed over the course of several months, coming to an end in 1911. For Gleizes, this portrait, much as Metzinger's 'Le goûter (Tea Time), exemplified concepts that were later codified in Du "Cubisme". In his autobiographical notes Gleizes suggests that the theory of intuition propounded in that text may have been pronounced as early as 1910 (during a Proto-Cubist phase).
|
[
"Symbolists",
"Albert Gleizes",
"avant-garde",
"Paul Cézanne",
"Cubism",
"La Femme au Cheval (Woman with a Horse)",
"Le Chemin, Paysage à Meudon",
"Proto-Cubist",
"Woman with a Horse",
"Du \"Cubisme\"",
"Robert Delaunay",
"Henri Bergson",
"antipositivist",
"La Femme au Cheval",
"Henri-Martin Barzun",
"Les Peintres Cubistes, Méditations Esthétiques",
"Alexandre Mercereau",
"Section d'Or",
"Le goûter (Tea Time)",
"Francis Picabia",
"Unanimist movement",
"Fernand Léger",
"Galeries Dalmau",
"single-point perspective"
] |
|
13625_NT
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
Focus on this artwork and analyze the Content and form.
|
A similar concept lies behind Albert Gleizes' portrait of his friend, neo-Symbolist writer Joseph Houot, pen name Jacques Nayral, who in 1912 married Mireille Gleizes, the sister of Albert Gleizes. Along with Metzinger's Tea Time, Gleizes' Portrait of Jacques Nayral, painted the same year, exemplifies ideas and opinions formulated between 1910 and 1911 that would soon be codified in Du "Cubisme"; written in 1912 by Metzinger and Gleizes in preparation for the Salon de la Section d'Or, held in October. Du "Cubisme", published by Eugène Figuière, a close associate of Gleizes' friends Jacques Nayral and Alexandre Mercereau, was an attempt to bring together all the progressive tendencies.According to Gleizes, both the content and form in this painting were the result of mind associations as he completed the work from memory; something that would play a crucial role in the works of other Cubists, such as Fernand Léger, Robert Delaunay and Francis Picabia. More so than an 'objective' view of the real-world, Jacques Nayral valorized subjective experience and expression. He and other Symbolist writers embraced an antirationalist and antipositivist world-view, consistent with concepts that underscored Cubist philosophies. Nayral's interest in philosophy led him to correspond with Henri Bergson, someone who would greatly inspire both Metzinger and Gleizes. Nayral's related interest in avant-garde art led him to purchase Metzinger's large 1912 oil on canvas entitled La Femme au Cheval, also known as Woman with a Horse (Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen). Nayral's association with Gleizes led him to write the Preface for the Cubist exhibition at Galeries Dalmau in Barcelona (April–May 2012)The Neo-Symbolist writers Jacques Nayral and Henri-Martin Barzun associated with the Unanimist movement in poetry. In his capacity as Figuière's editorial assistant Nayral had selected Du "Cubisme" and Les Peintres Cubistes, Méditations Esthétiques as part of a projected series on the arts. These writers and other Symbolists valorized expression and subjective experience over an objective view of the physical world.Paul Cézanne's technique of passage, in the Bergsonian sense, was used by the Cubists to stimulate a presentiment, an awareness of the dynamism of form. "Between sculpturally bold reliefs", wrote Gleizes and Metzinger, "let us throw slender shafts which do not define, but which suggest. Certain forms must remain implicit, so that the mind of the spectator is the chosen place of their concrete birth. Let us also contrive to cut by large restful surfaces any area where activity exaggerated by excessive contiguities.
The dynamism of form resides in the unfolding response of both the artist and viewer to the quantitative and qualitative properties of the Cubist artwork. Metzinger's La Femme au Cheval (Woman with a Horse) (1911-12)—illustrated in Du "Cubisme" and owned by the poet Jacques Nayral—is structured according to these principles. The interplay of volumes, lines and planes has been 'abstracted' from the subject matter and spread throughout the composition. These complex geometric forms serve to 'suggest' the underlying imagery rather than to 'define' the subject, allowing the unity of the picture to be established by the viewer's 'creative intuition'.In this portrait, Gleizes was interested in 'equivalences, echoes, interpenetrations [emboîtements], rhythmic correspondences with the surrounding elements—terrain, trees, houses'. He was delighted to paint a portrait of Nayral because his face corresponded well to the solid, faceted, architectural qualities he had sought.In a departure from the static nature of single-point perspective, in his Nayral portrait, as in Le Chemin, Paysage à Meudon (1911), Gleizes simplifies, interpenetrates volumes, fuses the landscape with the model, to form a homogeneous picture. While volumes point is different directions and the subject is seen from several different angles ('multiple perspective') the observer still sees the entire surface of the canvas, preserving unity.Nayral asked Gleizes to paint his portrait in 1910, a task the artist completed over the course of several months, coming to an end in 1911. For Gleizes, this portrait, much as Metzinger's 'Le goûter (Tea Time), exemplified concepts that were later codified in Du "Cubisme". In his autobiographical notes Gleizes suggests that the theory of intuition propounded in that text may have been pronounced as early as 1910 (during a Proto-Cubist phase).
|
[
"Symbolists",
"Albert Gleizes",
"avant-garde",
"Paul Cézanne",
"Cubism",
"La Femme au Cheval (Woman with a Horse)",
"Le Chemin, Paysage à Meudon",
"Proto-Cubist",
"Woman with a Horse",
"Du \"Cubisme\"",
"Robert Delaunay",
"Henri Bergson",
"antipositivist",
"La Femme au Cheval",
"Henri-Martin Barzun",
"Les Peintres Cubistes, Méditations Esthétiques",
"Alexandre Mercereau",
"Section d'Or",
"Le goûter (Tea Time)",
"Francis Picabia",
"Unanimist movement",
"Fernand Léger",
"Galeries Dalmau",
"single-point perspective"
] |
|
13626_T
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
In Portrait of Jacques Nayral, how is the Gleizes on Nayral discussed?
|
I was on the verge of painting the Portrait of Jacques Nayral. He was to become my brother-in-law, and was one of the most sympathetic men I have ever met. A strange lad, a little surprising on first encounter - both disturbing because of his sharp use of irony and also attractive because of a generosity that left him as vulnerable as a child. The first time I met him was at President Bonjean's house at Villepreux-les-Clayes, near Versailles, during a dinner which brought together the committee of that 'Villa Medicis Libre' which, as I said before, had been founded by Alexandre Mercereau. From that time onwards, we saw each other often and became friends. [...]One day he asked me to do his portrait. I agreed with joy, all the more so because his head and his whole personality [personne] seemed to me to be perfect models for emphasising the plastic elements I was trying to develop. His face with clearly demarcated surfaces that made up a passionate interplay of facets, his hair in dark masses projecting lightly in waves over his temples, his solidly constructed body - straightaway suggested to me equivalences, echoes [rappels], interpenetrations, rhythmic correspondences with the surrounding elements, fields, trees, houses. So I suggested painting him in my garden, where I found easily to hand an environment that was highly suitable for my model.
I made a whole series of studies to prepare this portrait. Drawings and washes in china ink. I analysed the architecture of the head in monumentally sized enlargements, two or three times the natural size, I made a certain number of drawings of the hands, I studied the organisation and the overall effect, volumes and the relations of the formal elements between themselves. Finally, I reduced the colour to a harmony of blacks and greys supported by some flashes of light red which set up a contrast, at once breaking with and supporting the interplay of harmonious colour relations. Nayral came regularly to the studio, I worked directly on him, naturally, but more often than not the work consisted in friendly conversation, in walks in the garden, during which I studied him, watching what was his natural way of walking and what were his usual gestures, above all arming my memory with essential characteristics, trying to isolate his true likeness from the accumulation of details and picturesque superfluities which always interfere with the permanent reality of a being. The portrait was executed without turning to the model, it was finished some weeks before the Automne and I decided to show it... if the jury would be willing to accept it, as I was not yet a member. (Albert Gleizes)
Nayral himself celebrated this collaborative process in his preface to the Cubist exhibition held at the Galerie Dalmau in Barcelona, April - May 1912 (the second Cubist manifestation held outside of Paris): 'You see a portrait in a landscape' wrote Nayral, 'is it simply the reproduction of some lines that permit our eye to recognize a head, clothes, trees? Photography would be sufficient'. Nayral answers the query: 'a thinking human in harmony with the surroundings, in accordance with them', one must 'reveal the concert of all these forms of life that are the thought of this man, the perfume of this flower, the brilliance of this plant, the vibration of this light, this is the task of the artist'. In essence, write Antliff and Leighten in Cubism and Culture, "this synthetic vision was the product of Gleizes's sympathetic response to the expressive acts and physiognomic traits he deemed indicative of the poet's character. Both form and content in the work were the result of Gleizes's mental associations while working from memory.Just before the 1911 Salon d'Automne—Metzinger had already placed the last brushstroke of paint of Tea Time—Gleizes published a major article about Metzinger, within which he argued that 'representation' was fundamental, but that Metzinger's intention was 'to inscribe the total image'. This total image 'combined the evidence of perception with 'a new truth, born from what his intelligence permits him to know'. Such 'intelligent' knowledge, writes the art historian Christopher Green, "was the accumulation of an all-round study of things, and so it was conveyed by the combination of multiple viewpoints in a single image." He continues, "This accumulation of fragmented aspects would be given 'equilibrium' by a geometric, a 'cubic' structure. Metzinger's Tea-time, a work that attracted much attention at the Salon d'Automne of 1911, is like a pictorial demonstration of Gleizes's text. Multiple perspectives and a firm overall geometric structure (almost a grid) take control of a near pornographic subject: 'intelligence' subdues the senses."Reviewing the Cubist room at the Salon d'Automne of 1911 in L'Intransigeant, Apollinaire wrote of Gleizes' Portrait of Jacques Nayral:‘It is a very good likeness, yet in this impressive canvas, there is not one form or color that was not invented by the artist. This portrait has a grandiose appearance that should not escape the notice of connoisseurs.’Nayral was killed in action in December 1914, at the age of thirty-five, in an attack on a German trench near Arras.
Gleizes first learned of the death of his brother-in-law and friend when a postcard on which he had written "Patience, a little more patience, it is impossible that this war can endure much longer... then we will put ourselves back to work..." came back marked "disparu". Gleizes painted two works entitled To Jacques Nayral (A Jacques Nayral) in 1914 and 1917 as an homage to the writer. These are private portraits that signify an intensely personal memorial to his closest friend and key figure who shared the hopes of the pre-war Passy group for an innovative collective artistic program.
|
[
"Passy group",
"Albert Gleizes",
"Cubism",
"Salon d'Automne",
"Alexandre Mercereau"
] |
|
13626_NT
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
In this artwork, how is the Gleizes on Nayral discussed?
|
I was on the verge of painting the Portrait of Jacques Nayral. He was to become my brother-in-law, and was one of the most sympathetic men I have ever met. A strange lad, a little surprising on first encounter - both disturbing because of his sharp use of irony and also attractive because of a generosity that left him as vulnerable as a child. The first time I met him was at President Bonjean's house at Villepreux-les-Clayes, near Versailles, during a dinner which brought together the committee of that 'Villa Medicis Libre' which, as I said before, had been founded by Alexandre Mercereau. From that time onwards, we saw each other often and became friends. [...]One day he asked me to do his portrait. I agreed with joy, all the more so because his head and his whole personality [personne] seemed to me to be perfect models for emphasising the plastic elements I was trying to develop. His face with clearly demarcated surfaces that made up a passionate interplay of facets, his hair in dark masses projecting lightly in waves over his temples, his solidly constructed body - straightaway suggested to me equivalences, echoes [rappels], interpenetrations, rhythmic correspondences with the surrounding elements, fields, trees, houses. So I suggested painting him in my garden, where I found easily to hand an environment that was highly suitable for my model.
I made a whole series of studies to prepare this portrait. Drawings and washes in china ink. I analysed the architecture of the head in monumentally sized enlargements, two or three times the natural size, I made a certain number of drawings of the hands, I studied the organisation and the overall effect, volumes and the relations of the formal elements between themselves. Finally, I reduced the colour to a harmony of blacks and greys supported by some flashes of light red which set up a contrast, at once breaking with and supporting the interplay of harmonious colour relations. Nayral came regularly to the studio, I worked directly on him, naturally, but more often than not the work consisted in friendly conversation, in walks in the garden, during which I studied him, watching what was his natural way of walking and what were his usual gestures, above all arming my memory with essential characteristics, trying to isolate his true likeness from the accumulation of details and picturesque superfluities which always interfere with the permanent reality of a being. The portrait was executed without turning to the model, it was finished some weeks before the Automne and I decided to show it... if the jury would be willing to accept it, as I was not yet a member. (Albert Gleizes)
Nayral himself celebrated this collaborative process in his preface to the Cubist exhibition held at the Galerie Dalmau in Barcelona, April - May 1912 (the second Cubist manifestation held outside of Paris): 'You see a portrait in a landscape' wrote Nayral, 'is it simply the reproduction of some lines that permit our eye to recognize a head, clothes, trees? Photography would be sufficient'. Nayral answers the query: 'a thinking human in harmony with the surroundings, in accordance with them', one must 'reveal the concert of all these forms of life that are the thought of this man, the perfume of this flower, the brilliance of this plant, the vibration of this light, this is the task of the artist'. In essence, write Antliff and Leighten in Cubism and Culture, "this synthetic vision was the product of Gleizes's sympathetic response to the expressive acts and physiognomic traits he deemed indicative of the poet's character. Both form and content in the work were the result of Gleizes's mental associations while working from memory.Just before the 1911 Salon d'Automne—Metzinger had already placed the last brushstroke of paint of Tea Time—Gleizes published a major article about Metzinger, within which he argued that 'representation' was fundamental, but that Metzinger's intention was 'to inscribe the total image'. This total image 'combined the evidence of perception with 'a new truth, born from what his intelligence permits him to know'. Such 'intelligent' knowledge, writes the art historian Christopher Green, "was the accumulation of an all-round study of things, and so it was conveyed by the combination of multiple viewpoints in a single image." He continues, "This accumulation of fragmented aspects would be given 'equilibrium' by a geometric, a 'cubic' structure. Metzinger's Tea-time, a work that attracted much attention at the Salon d'Automne of 1911, is like a pictorial demonstration of Gleizes's text. Multiple perspectives and a firm overall geometric structure (almost a grid) take control of a near pornographic subject: 'intelligence' subdues the senses."Reviewing the Cubist room at the Salon d'Automne of 1911 in L'Intransigeant, Apollinaire wrote of Gleizes' Portrait of Jacques Nayral:‘It is a very good likeness, yet in this impressive canvas, there is not one form or color that was not invented by the artist. This portrait has a grandiose appearance that should not escape the notice of connoisseurs.’Nayral was killed in action in December 1914, at the age of thirty-five, in an attack on a German trench near Arras.
Gleizes first learned of the death of his brother-in-law and friend when a postcard on which he had written "Patience, a little more patience, it is impossible that this war can endure much longer... then we will put ourselves back to work..." came back marked "disparu". Gleizes painted two works entitled To Jacques Nayral (A Jacques Nayral) in 1914 and 1917 as an homage to the writer. These are private portraits that signify an intensely personal memorial to his closest friend and key figure who shared the hopes of the pre-war Passy group for an innovative collective artistic program.
|
[
"Passy group",
"Albert Gleizes",
"Cubism",
"Salon d'Automne",
"Alexandre Mercereau"
] |
|
13627_T
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
Focus on Portrait of Jacques Nayral and explore the Criticism.
|
The Cubists had become by 1911 a legitimate target for critical disdain and satirical wit. "The cubists play a role in art today analogous to that sustained so effectively in the political and social arena by the apostles of anti-militarism and organized sabotage" wrote the critic Gabriel Mourney in his review of the Salon d'Automne of 1911 for Le Journal, "so doubtless the excesses of the anarchists and saboteurs of French painting will contribute to reviving, in artists and amateurs worthy of the name, the taste for true art and true beauty."Claude of Le Petit Parisien accused the salon cubists of arrivisme, Janneau for Gil Blas questioned the sincerity of the cubists, and Tardieu in Echo de Paris condemned 'the snobbery of the gullible which applauds the most stupid nonsenses of the arts of painting presented to idiots as the audacities of genius."Henri Guilbeaux, reviewing the 1911 Indépendants for Les Hommes du jour described the paintings of Metzinger, Léger and others as 'grotesque, ridiculous, intended to bewilder – it would appear – the bourgeoisie', paintings 'whose cubes, cones and pyramids pile up, collapse and...make you laugh.'Vauxcelles, perhaps more so than his fellow critics, indulged in witty mockery of the salon Cubists: 'But in truth, what honor we do to these bipeds of the parallelepiped, to their lucubrations, cubes, succubi and incubi'. Vauxcelles was more than just skeptical. His comfort level had already been surpassed with the 1907 works of Matisse and Derain, which he perceived as perilous, 'an uncertain schematization, proscribing relief and volumes in the name of I know not what principle of pictorial abstraction.'His concerns deepened in 1909 as the work of Le Fauconier, Delaunay, Gleizes and Metzinger emerged as a unifying force. He condemned 'the frigid extravagances of a number of mystificators' and queried: 'Do they take us for dupes? Indeed are they fooled themselves? It;s a puzzle hardly worth solving. Let M. Metzinger dance along behind Picasso, or Derain, or Bracke [sic]...let M. Herbin crudely defile a clean canvas – that's their mistakes. We'll not join them...'
|
[
"Salon d'Automne",
"Derain",
"Matisse"
] |
|
13627_NT
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
Focus on this artwork and explore the Criticism.
|
The Cubists had become by 1911 a legitimate target for critical disdain and satirical wit. "The cubists play a role in art today analogous to that sustained so effectively in the political and social arena by the apostles of anti-militarism and organized sabotage" wrote the critic Gabriel Mourney in his review of the Salon d'Automne of 1911 for Le Journal, "so doubtless the excesses of the anarchists and saboteurs of French painting will contribute to reviving, in artists and amateurs worthy of the name, the taste for true art and true beauty."Claude of Le Petit Parisien accused the salon cubists of arrivisme, Janneau for Gil Blas questioned the sincerity of the cubists, and Tardieu in Echo de Paris condemned 'the snobbery of the gullible which applauds the most stupid nonsenses of the arts of painting presented to idiots as the audacities of genius."Henri Guilbeaux, reviewing the 1911 Indépendants for Les Hommes du jour described the paintings of Metzinger, Léger and others as 'grotesque, ridiculous, intended to bewilder – it would appear – the bourgeoisie', paintings 'whose cubes, cones and pyramids pile up, collapse and...make you laugh.'Vauxcelles, perhaps more so than his fellow critics, indulged in witty mockery of the salon Cubists: 'But in truth, what honor we do to these bipeds of the parallelepiped, to their lucubrations, cubes, succubi and incubi'. Vauxcelles was more than just skeptical. His comfort level had already been surpassed with the 1907 works of Matisse and Derain, which he perceived as perilous, 'an uncertain schematization, proscribing relief and volumes in the name of I know not what principle of pictorial abstraction.'His concerns deepened in 1909 as the work of Le Fauconier, Delaunay, Gleizes and Metzinger emerged as a unifying force. He condemned 'the frigid extravagances of a number of mystificators' and queried: 'Do they take us for dupes? Indeed are they fooled themselves? It;s a puzzle hardly worth solving. Let M. Metzinger dance along behind Picasso, or Derain, or Bracke [sic]...let M. Herbin crudely defile a clean canvas – that's their mistakes. We'll not join them...'
|
[
"Salon d'Automne",
"Derain",
"Matisse"
] |
|
13628_T
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
Focus on Portrait of Jacques Nayral and explain the Salon d'Automne of 1911.
|
In Room 7 and 8 of the 1911 Salon d'Automne, held 1 October through November 8, at the Grand Palais in Paris, hung works by Gleizes, Portrait de Jacques Nayral and La Chasse. Metzinger exhibited Le goûter (Tea Time). Also present were Henri Le Fauconnier, Fernand Léger, Roger de La Fresnaye, André Lhote, Jacques Villon, Marcel Duchamp, František Kupka, Francis Picabia and the Cubist sculptors Alexander Archipenko, Joseph Csaky. The result was a public scandal which brought Cubism to the attention of the general public for the second time. The first was the organized group showing by Cubists in Salle 41 of the 1911 Salon des Indépendants (Paris), with Metzinger, Delaunay, le Fauconnier and Léger.
The author of Portrait of Jacques Nayral later wrote of the exhibition that followed the infamous 1911 Salon des Indépendants:With the Salon d'Automne of that same year, 1911, the fury broke out again, just as violent as it had been at the Indépendants. I remember this Room 8 in the Grand Palais on the opening day. People were crushed together, shouting, laughing, calling for our heads. And what had we hung? Metzinger his lovely canvas entitled Le Goûter; Léger his sombre Nus dans un Paysage; Le Fauconnier, landscapes done in the Savoie; myself La Chasse and the Portrait de Jacques Nayral. How distant it all seems now! But I can still see the crowd gathering together in the doors of the room, pushing at those who were already pressed into it, wanting to get in to see for themselves the monsters that we were.
The winter season in Paris profited from all this to add a little spice to its pleasures. While the newspapers sounded the alarm to alert people to the danger, and while appeals were made to the public authorities to do something about it, song-writers, satirists and other men of wit and spirit, provoked great pleasure among the leisured classes by playing with the word 'cube', discovering that it was a very suitable means of inducing laughter which, as we all know, is the principle characteristic that distinguishes man from the animals.(Albert Gleizes, 1925)
In his review of the 1911 Salon d'Automne published in L'Intransigeant, written more as a counter attack in defense of Cubism, Guillaume Apollinaire expressed his views on the entries of Metzinger and Gleizes:The imagination of Metzinger gave us this year two elegant canvases of tones and drawing that attest, at the very least, to a great culture... His art belongs to him now. He has vacated influences and his palette is of a refined richness. Gleizes shows us the two sides of his great talent: invention and observation. Take the example of Portrait de Jacques Nayral, there is good resemblance, but there is not one form or color in this impressive painting that has not been invented by the artist. The portrait has a grandiose appearance that should not escape the notice of connoisseurs. This portrait covers [revêt] a grandiose appearance that should not elude connoisseurs... It is time that young painters turn towards the sublime in their art. La Chasse, by Gleizes, is well composed and of beautiful colors and sings [chantant].
Roger Allard remarked that the general public viewing the works Metzinger, Gleizes and Le Fauconnier at the Salon d'Automne of 1910 found the "deformation of lines" less humorous than the "deformation of color", except with regards to the human face. Christopher Green writes that the "deformations of lines" allowed by mobile perspective in the head of Metzinger's Tea-time and Gleizes's Jacques Nayral "have seemed tentative to historians of Cubism. In 1911, as the key area of likeness and unlikeness, they more than anything released the laughter." Green continues, "This was the wider context of Gris's decision at the Indépendants of 1912 to make his debut with a Homage to Pablo Picasso, which was a portrait, and to do so with a portrait that responded to Picasso's portraits of 1910 through the intermediary of Metzinger's Tea-time.Apollinaire took Picasso to the opening of the exhibition in 1911 to see the cubist works in Room 7 and 8. At about the time of this exhibition, Gleizes, through the intermediary of Apollinaire, meets Picasso and sees the work of Picasso and Braque for the first time. He gives his reaction in an essay published in another shortlived Abbaye dominated literary magazine, La Revue Indépendante. He considers that Picasso and Braque, despite the great value of their work, are engaged in an 'Impressionism of Form', which is to say that they give an appearance of formal construction which does not rest on any clearly comprehensible principle.Through the Salon d'Automne, Gleizes also enters into relations with the Duchamp brothers, Jacques Villon (1875-1963), Raymond Duchamp-Villon (1876-1918) and Marcel Duchamp (1887 1968). The studios of Jacques Villon and Raymond Duchamp-Villon at 7, rue Lemaître, become, together with Gleizes' studio at Courbevoie, a regular meeting place for the Cubist group, soon to become known as the Puteaux Group, or Section d'Or.Reviewing the Salon d'Automne of 1911, Huntly Carter in The New Age writes that "art is not an accessory to life; it is life itself carried to the greatest heights of personal expression." Carter continues: It was at the Salon d'Automne, amid the Rhythmists, I found the desired sensation. The exuberant eagerness and vitality of their region, consisting of two room remotely situated, was a complete contrast to the morgue I was compelled to pass through in order to reach it. Though marked by extremes, it was clearly the starting point of a new movement in painting, perhaps the most remarkable in modern times, It revealed not only that artists are beginning to recognise the unity of art and life, but that some of them have discovered life is based on rhythmic vitality, and underlying all things is the perfect rhythm that continues and unites them. Consciously, or unconsciously, many are seeking for the perfect rhythm, and in so doing are attaining a liberty or wideness of expression unattained through several centuries of painting. (Huntly Carter, 1911)
|
[
"Jacques Villon",
"La Chasse",
"Roger de La Fresnaye",
"Guillaume Apollinaire",
"Albert Gleizes",
"Alexander Archipenko",
"Cubism",
"Salon d'Automne",
"Marcel Duchamp",
"Pablo Picasso",
"Roger Allard",
"Joseph Csaky",
"Cubist sculptors",
"František Kupka",
"Abbaye",
"Section d'Or",
"Le goûter (Tea Time)",
"Francis Picabia",
"Courbevoie",
"Fernand Léger",
"Henri Le Fauconnier",
"André Lhote",
"Raymond Duchamp-Villon"
] |
|
13628_NT
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
Focus on this artwork and explain the Salon d'Automne of 1911.
|
In Room 7 and 8 of the 1911 Salon d'Automne, held 1 October through November 8, at the Grand Palais in Paris, hung works by Gleizes, Portrait de Jacques Nayral and La Chasse. Metzinger exhibited Le goûter (Tea Time). Also present were Henri Le Fauconnier, Fernand Léger, Roger de La Fresnaye, André Lhote, Jacques Villon, Marcel Duchamp, František Kupka, Francis Picabia and the Cubist sculptors Alexander Archipenko, Joseph Csaky. The result was a public scandal which brought Cubism to the attention of the general public for the second time. The first was the organized group showing by Cubists in Salle 41 of the 1911 Salon des Indépendants (Paris), with Metzinger, Delaunay, le Fauconnier and Léger.
The author of Portrait of Jacques Nayral later wrote of the exhibition that followed the infamous 1911 Salon des Indépendants:With the Salon d'Automne of that same year, 1911, the fury broke out again, just as violent as it had been at the Indépendants. I remember this Room 8 in the Grand Palais on the opening day. People were crushed together, shouting, laughing, calling for our heads. And what had we hung? Metzinger his lovely canvas entitled Le Goûter; Léger his sombre Nus dans un Paysage; Le Fauconnier, landscapes done in the Savoie; myself La Chasse and the Portrait de Jacques Nayral. How distant it all seems now! But I can still see the crowd gathering together in the doors of the room, pushing at those who were already pressed into it, wanting to get in to see for themselves the monsters that we were.
The winter season in Paris profited from all this to add a little spice to its pleasures. While the newspapers sounded the alarm to alert people to the danger, and while appeals were made to the public authorities to do something about it, song-writers, satirists and other men of wit and spirit, provoked great pleasure among the leisured classes by playing with the word 'cube', discovering that it was a very suitable means of inducing laughter which, as we all know, is the principle characteristic that distinguishes man from the animals.(Albert Gleizes, 1925)
In his review of the 1911 Salon d'Automne published in L'Intransigeant, written more as a counter attack in defense of Cubism, Guillaume Apollinaire expressed his views on the entries of Metzinger and Gleizes:The imagination of Metzinger gave us this year two elegant canvases of tones and drawing that attest, at the very least, to a great culture... His art belongs to him now. He has vacated influences and his palette is of a refined richness. Gleizes shows us the two sides of his great talent: invention and observation. Take the example of Portrait de Jacques Nayral, there is good resemblance, but there is not one form or color in this impressive painting that has not been invented by the artist. The portrait has a grandiose appearance that should not escape the notice of connoisseurs. This portrait covers [revêt] a grandiose appearance that should not elude connoisseurs... It is time that young painters turn towards the sublime in their art. La Chasse, by Gleizes, is well composed and of beautiful colors and sings [chantant].
Roger Allard remarked that the general public viewing the works Metzinger, Gleizes and Le Fauconnier at the Salon d'Automne of 1910 found the "deformation of lines" less humorous than the "deformation of color", except with regards to the human face. Christopher Green writes that the "deformations of lines" allowed by mobile perspective in the head of Metzinger's Tea-time and Gleizes's Jacques Nayral "have seemed tentative to historians of Cubism. In 1911, as the key area of likeness and unlikeness, they more than anything released the laughter." Green continues, "This was the wider context of Gris's decision at the Indépendants of 1912 to make his debut with a Homage to Pablo Picasso, which was a portrait, and to do so with a portrait that responded to Picasso's portraits of 1910 through the intermediary of Metzinger's Tea-time.Apollinaire took Picasso to the opening of the exhibition in 1911 to see the cubist works in Room 7 and 8. At about the time of this exhibition, Gleizes, through the intermediary of Apollinaire, meets Picasso and sees the work of Picasso and Braque for the first time. He gives his reaction in an essay published in another shortlived Abbaye dominated literary magazine, La Revue Indépendante. He considers that Picasso and Braque, despite the great value of their work, are engaged in an 'Impressionism of Form', which is to say that they give an appearance of formal construction which does not rest on any clearly comprehensible principle.Through the Salon d'Automne, Gleizes also enters into relations with the Duchamp brothers, Jacques Villon (1875-1963), Raymond Duchamp-Villon (1876-1918) and Marcel Duchamp (1887 1968). The studios of Jacques Villon and Raymond Duchamp-Villon at 7, rue Lemaître, become, together with Gleizes' studio at Courbevoie, a regular meeting place for the Cubist group, soon to become known as the Puteaux Group, or Section d'Or.Reviewing the Salon d'Automne of 1911, Huntly Carter in The New Age writes that "art is not an accessory to life; it is life itself carried to the greatest heights of personal expression." Carter continues: It was at the Salon d'Automne, amid the Rhythmists, I found the desired sensation. The exuberant eagerness and vitality of their region, consisting of two room remotely situated, was a complete contrast to the morgue I was compelled to pass through in order to reach it. Though marked by extremes, it was clearly the starting point of a new movement in painting, perhaps the most remarkable in modern times, It revealed not only that artists are beginning to recognise the unity of art and life, but that some of them have discovered life is based on rhythmic vitality, and underlying all things is the perfect rhythm that continues and unites them. Consciously, or unconsciously, many are seeking for the perfect rhythm, and in so doing are attaining a liberty or wideness of expression unattained through several centuries of painting. (Huntly Carter, 1911)
|
[
"Jacques Villon",
"La Chasse",
"Roger de La Fresnaye",
"Guillaume Apollinaire",
"Albert Gleizes",
"Alexander Archipenko",
"Cubism",
"Salon d'Automne",
"Marcel Duchamp",
"Pablo Picasso",
"Roger Allard",
"Joseph Csaky",
"Cubist sculptors",
"František Kupka",
"Abbaye",
"Section d'Or",
"Le goûter (Tea Time)",
"Francis Picabia",
"Courbevoie",
"Fernand Léger",
"Henri Le Fauconnier",
"André Lhote",
"Raymond Duchamp-Villon"
] |
|
13629_T
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
Explore the Provenance of this artwork, Portrait of Jacques Nayral.
|
Joseph Houot (Jacques Nayral)
Mme Joseph Houot
Commandant Georges Houot, La Flèche
Sold by Mme Georges Houot at Sotheby's, London, 5 December 1979, lot 92 reproduced in color
Tate Modern, purchased at Sotheby's (Grant-in-Aid) 1979
|
[
"Tate Modern",
"London"
] |
|
13629_NT
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
Explore the Provenance of this artwork.
|
Joseph Houot (Jacques Nayral)
Mme Joseph Houot
Commandant Georges Houot, La Flèche
Sold by Mme Georges Houot at Sotheby's, London, 5 December 1979, lot 92 reproduced in color
Tate Modern, purchased at Sotheby's (Grant-in-Aid) 1979
|
[
"Tate Modern",
"London"
] |
|
13630_T
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
Focus on Portrait of Jacques Nayral and discuss the Exhibitions.
|
Salon d'Automne, Paris, October–November 1911 (609)
Salon de ‘La Section d'Or’, Galerie La Boëtie, Paris, October 1912 (38)
Les Maîtres de l'Art Indépendant 1895–1937, Petit Palais, Paris, June–October 1937 (Room 28, 17)
Le Cubisme (1907–1914), Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris, January–April 1953 (64)
II Bienal, São Paulo, December 1953–February 1954 (Cubist room 16)
Albert Gleizes 1881–1953, Guggenheim Museum, New York, September–November 1964 (11, repr.)
Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris, December 1964–January 1965 (11, repr.)
Museum am Ostwall, Dortmund, March–April 1965 (11, repr.) Tate Modern
Cubisti Cubismo, Complesso del Vittoriano, Rome, 8 March–23 June 2013
Le cubisme, 17 October 2018 – 25 February 2019, Galerie 1, Centre Pompidou, Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris. Kunstmuseum Basel, 31 March – 5 August 2019
|
[
"Centre Pompidou",
"Albert Gleizes",
"Tate Modern",
"Cubism",
"Salon d'Automne",
"Kunstmuseum Basel",
"Section d'Or"
] |
|
13630_NT
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
Focus on this artwork and discuss the Exhibitions.
|
Salon d'Automne, Paris, October–November 1911 (609)
Salon de ‘La Section d'Or’, Galerie La Boëtie, Paris, October 1912 (38)
Les Maîtres de l'Art Indépendant 1895–1937, Petit Palais, Paris, June–October 1937 (Room 28, 17)
Le Cubisme (1907–1914), Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris, January–April 1953 (64)
II Bienal, São Paulo, December 1953–February 1954 (Cubist room 16)
Albert Gleizes 1881–1953, Guggenheim Museum, New York, September–November 1964 (11, repr.)
Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris, December 1964–January 1965 (11, repr.)
Museum am Ostwall, Dortmund, March–April 1965 (11, repr.) Tate Modern
Cubisti Cubismo, Complesso del Vittoriano, Rome, 8 March–23 June 2013
Le cubisme, 17 October 2018 – 25 February 2019, Galerie 1, Centre Pompidou, Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris. Kunstmuseum Basel, 31 March – 5 August 2019
|
[
"Centre Pompidou",
"Albert Gleizes",
"Tate Modern",
"Cubism",
"Salon d'Automne",
"Kunstmuseum Basel",
"Section d'Or"
] |
|
13631_T
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
How does Portrait of Jacques Nayral elucidate its Literature?
|
Guillaume Apollinaire in L'Intransigeant, 10 October 1911
Fantasio, 15 October 1911, Albert Gleizes, Portrait of Jacques Nayral, Jean Metzinger, Le Gouter, Tea Time, 1911
Jacques Nayral [pseudo. of Jacques Huot], Préface, Exposició d'art cubista, Galeries J. Dalmau, Barcelona, 20 April - 10 May 1912, p. 1-7, illustrated in the preface
Albert Gleizes and Jean Metzinger, Du "Cubisme", published by Eugène Figuière, Paris, 1912, translated to English and Russian in 1913
Guillaume Apollinaire, Le Petit Bleu, March 20, 1912 (cf. Chroniques d'Art, 1960, p. 230).
Guillaume Apollinaire, Méditations esthétiques. Les peintres cubistes (The Cubist Painters) Edition Figuière, Paris, 1913
Albert Gleizes, ‘L'Epopée’ in Le Rouge et le Noir, October 1929, p. 64, repr.
Bonfante, E. and Ravenna, J. Arte Cubista con "les Méditations esthétiques sur la Peinture" di Guillaume Apollinaire, Venice, 1945, no. LVIII.
Musee d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Catalogue-Guide, Paris, 1961.
Robbins, Daniel, Albert Gleizes 1881 – 1953, A Retrospective Exhibition, Published by The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York, in collaboration with Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris, Museum am Ostwall, Dortmund, 1964 (catalogue no. 31).
Joan A. Speers (ed.), Art at Auction: The Year at Sotheby Parke Bernet 1979–80, 1980, p. 114 in color; Tate Gallery 1978–80, p. 50 in color
The Tate Gallery 1978-80: Illustrated Catalogue of Acquisitions, London 1981
Varichon, Anne, Albert Gleizes – Catalogue Raisonné, Volume 1, Paris, Somogy éditions d'art/Fondation Albert Gleizes, 1998, ISBN 2-85056-286-6.
Mark Antliff, Patricia Dee Leighten, Cubism and Culture, Thames & Hudson, 2001
|
[
"Robbins, Daniel",
"Guillaume Apollinaire",
"Albert Gleizes",
"Cubism",
"Du \"Cubisme\"",
"London",
"Jean Metzinger"
] |
|
13631_NT
|
Portrait of Jacques Nayral
|
How does this artwork elucidate its Literature?
|
Guillaume Apollinaire in L'Intransigeant, 10 October 1911
Fantasio, 15 October 1911, Albert Gleizes, Portrait of Jacques Nayral, Jean Metzinger, Le Gouter, Tea Time, 1911
Jacques Nayral [pseudo. of Jacques Huot], Préface, Exposició d'art cubista, Galeries J. Dalmau, Barcelona, 20 April - 10 May 1912, p. 1-7, illustrated in the preface
Albert Gleizes and Jean Metzinger, Du "Cubisme", published by Eugène Figuière, Paris, 1912, translated to English and Russian in 1913
Guillaume Apollinaire, Le Petit Bleu, March 20, 1912 (cf. Chroniques d'Art, 1960, p. 230).
Guillaume Apollinaire, Méditations esthétiques. Les peintres cubistes (The Cubist Painters) Edition Figuière, Paris, 1913
Albert Gleizes, ‘L'Epopée’ in Le Rouge et le Noir, October 1929, p. 64, repr.
Bonfante, E. and Ravenna, J. Arte Cubista con "les Méditations esthétiques sur la Peinture" di Guillaume Apollinaire, Venice, 1945, no. LVIII.
Musee d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Catalogue-Guide, Paris, 1961.
Robbins, Daniel, Albert Gleizes 1881 – 1953, A Retrospective Exhibition, Published by The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York, in collaboration with Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris, Museum am Ostwall, Dortmund, 1964 (catalogue no. 31).
Joan A. Speers (ed.), Art at Auction: The Year at Sotheby Parke Bernet 1979–80, 1980, p. 114 in color; Tate Gallery 1978–80, p. 50 in color
The Tate Gallery 1978-80: Illustrated Catalogue of Acquisitions, London 1981
Varichon, Anne, Albert Gleizes – Catalogue Raisonné, Volume 1, Paris, Somogy éditions d'art/Fondation Albert Gleizes, 1998, ISBN 2-85056-286-6.
Mark Antliff, Patricia Dee Leighten, Cubism and Culture, Thames & Hudson, 2001
|
[
"Robbins, Daniel",
"Guillaume Apollinaire",
"Albert Gleizes",
"Cubism",
"Du \"Cubisme\"",
"London",
"Jean Metzinger"
] |
|
13632_T
|
Nu couché (sur le côté gauche)
|
Focus on Nu couché (sur le côté gauche) and analyze the abstract.
|
Nu couché (sur le côté gauche) is a 1917 painting by Amedeo Modigliani. The painting was included in a 2017/2018 Tate Modern exhibition of Modigliani's works. The painting was sold by auction by Sotheby's in April 2018. Writing in The Guardian, British arts journalist Jonathan Jones compared it to Ingres' 1814 work Grande Odalisque.The painting is currently valued at over $100 million and is considered to be one of the most famous portraits of women ever.
|
[
"Jonathan Jones",
"Ingres'",
"Amedeo Modigliani",
"Tate Modern",
"Tate",
"Grande Odalisque",
"The Guardian",
"Sotheby's",
"Nu couché"
] |
|
13632_NT
|
Nu couché (sur le côté gauche)
|
Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract.
|
Nu couché (sur le côté gauche) is a 1917 painting by Amedeo Modigliani. The painting was included in a 2017/2018 Tate Modern exhibition of Modigliani's works. The painting was sold by auction by Sotheby's in April 2018. Writing in The Guardian, British arts journalist Jonathan Jones compared it to Ingres' 1814 work Grande Odalisque.The painting is currently valued at over $100 million and is considered to be one of the most famous portraits of women ever.
|
[
"Jonathan Jones",
"Ingres'",
"Amedeo Modigliani",
"Tate Modern",
"Tate",
"Grande Odalisque",
"The Guardian",
"Sotheby's",
"Nu couché"
] |
|
13633_T
|
Statue of Edmund Kirby Smith
|
In Statue of Edmund Kirby Smith, how is the abstract discussed?
|
Edmund Kirby Smith is a bronze sculpture commemorating the Confederate officer of the same name by C. Adrian Pillars that was installed in the United States Capitol Visitor Center as part of the National Statuary Hall Collection from 1922 to 2021. The statue was gifted by the state of Florida in 1922.Smith, who died in 1893, was the last surviving General of the Confederate States Army, as well as the last surviving full General from either side of the American Civil War. After he died, his family changed their name to Kirby-Smith to help “distinguish him from the other Civil War 'General Smiths,'" of which there were approximately 35.At the statue's unveiling in Congress, Representative William J. Sears quoted a resolution from the Confederate States Congress that praised Kirby Smith's “justice, his firmness and moderation, his integrity and conscientious regard for law, his unaffected kindness to the people, the protection of their rights and the redress of their wrongs, and has thus won the confidence of [the Confederate] Congress.”On March 19, 2018, Governor Rick Scott signed legislation replacing the statue with one of African-American educator and civil rights activist Mary McLeod Bethune. On September 4, 2021, the statue was removed from the U.S. Capitol. The replacement statue of Bethune was unveiled at the U.S. Capitol on July 13, 2022.The fate of the statue of Smith, once removed, has been much discussed, and as of August 2020 remains unresolved. His birthplace, St. Augustine, does not want it. The statue was to have been moved to the Lake County Historical Museum, in Tavares, Florida, but there has been significant local opposition. Smith never lived in Lake County; at the time Smith was born Lake County was part of St. Johns County, whose county seat is St. Augustine. On July 7, 2020, Lake County commissioners voted 4–1 against accepting the monument. In September 2021, the Tampa Bay Times reported plans of having the statue temporarily stored at the Museum of Florida History out of public display until a permanent home is found.
|
[
"United States Capitol Visitor Center",
"National Statuary Hall Collection",
"Confederate States Congress",
"bronze sculpture",
"C. Adrian Pillars",
"Confederate States Army",
"replacement statue of Bethune",
"National Statuary Hall",
"St. Augustine",
"Tavares, Florida",
"Mary McLeod Bethune",
"American Civil War",
"St. Johns County",
"William J. Sears",
"Edmund Kirby Smith",
"Florida",
"Lake County",
"United States Capitol",
"Rick Scott",
"Museum of Florida History",
"Confederate officer of the same name",
"civil rights"
] |
|
13633_NT
|
Statue of Edmund Kirby Smith
|
In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed?
|
Edmund Kirby Smith is a bronze sculpture commemorating the Confederate officer of the same name by C. Adrian Pillars that was installed in the United States Capitol Visitor Center as part of the National Statuary Hall Collection from 1922 to 2021. The statue was gifted by the state of Florida in 1922.Smith, who died in 1893, was the last surviving General of the Confederate States Army, as well as the last surviving full General from either side of the American Civil War. After he died, his family changed their name to Kirby-Smith to help “distinguish him from the other Civil War 'General Smiths,'" of which there were approximately 35.At the statue's unveiling in Congress, Representative William J. Sears quoted a resolution from the Confederate States Congress that praised Kirby Smith's “justice, his firmness and moderation, his integrity and conscientious regard for law, his unaffected kindness to the people, the protection of their rights and the redress of their wrongs, and has thus won the confidence of [the Confederate] Congress.”On March 19, 2018, Governor Rick Scott signed legislation replacing the statue with one of African-American educator and civil rights activist Mary McLeod Bethune. On September 4, 2021, the statue was removed from the U.S. Capitol. The replacement statue of Bethune was unveiled at the U.S. Capitol on July 13, 2022.The fate of the statue of Smith, once removed, has been much discussed, and as of August 2020 remains unresolved. His birthplace, St. Augustine, does not want it. The statue was to have been moved to the Lake County Historical Museum, in Tavares, Florida, but there has been significant local opposition. Smith never lived in Lake County; at the time Smith was born Lake County was part of St. Johns County, whose county seat is St. Augustine. On July 7, 2020, Lake County commissioners voted 4–1 against accepting the monument. In September 2021, the Tampa Bay Times reported plans of having the statue temporarily stored at the Museum of Florida History out of public display until a permanent home is found.
|
[
"United States Capitol Visitor Center",
"National Statuary Hall Collection",
"Confederate States Congress",
"bronze sculpture",
"C. Adrian Pillars",
"Confederate States Army",
"replacement statue of Bethune",
"National Statuary Hall",
"St. Augustine",
"Tavares, Florida",
"Mary McLeod Bethune",
"American Civil War",
"St. Johns County",
"William J. Sears",
"Edmund Kirby Smith",
"Florida",
"Lake County",
"United States Capitol",
"Rick Scott",
"Museum of Florida History",
"Confederate officer of the same name",
"civil rights"
] |
|
13634_T
|
Basket of Fruit (Caravaggio)
|
Focus on Basket of Fruit (Caravaggio) and explore the abstract.
|
Basket of Fruit (c.1599) is a still life painting by the Italian Baroque master Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571–1610), which hangs in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Ambrosian Library), Milan.
It shows a wicker basket perched on the edge of a ledge. The basket contains a selection of summer fruit:... a good-sized, light-red peach attached to a stem with wormholes in the leaf resembling damage by oriental fruit moth (Orthosia hibisci). Beneath it is a single bicolored apple, shown from a stem perspective with two insect entry holes, probably codling moth, one of which shows secondary rot at the edge; one blushed yellow pear with insect predations resembling damage by leaf roller (Archips argyospita); four figs, two white and two purple—the purple ones dead ripe and splitting along the sides, plus a large fig leaf with a prominent fungal scorch lesion resembling anthracnose (Glomerella cingulata); and a single unblemished quince with a leafy spur showing fungal spots. There are four clusters of grapes, black, red, golden, and white; the red cluster on the right shows several mummied fruit, while the two clusters on the left each show an overripe berry. There are two grape leaves, one severely desiccated and shriveled while the other contains spots and evidence of an egg mass. In the right part of the basket are two green figs and a ripe black one is nestled in the rear on the left. On the sides of the basket are two disembodied shoots: to the right is a grape shoot with two leaves, both showing severe insect predations resembling grasshopper feeding; to the left is a floating spur of quince or pear.
Much has been made of the worm-eaten, insect-predated, and generally less than perfect condition of the fruit. In line with the culture of the age, the general theme appears to revolve about the fading beauty, and the natural decaying of all things. Scholars also describe the basket of fruit as a metaphor of the Church.A recent X-ray study revealed that it was painted on an already used canvas painted with grotesques in the style of Caravaggio's friend Prospero Orsi, who helped the artist in his first breakthrough into the circles of collectors such as his first patron, Cardinal Francesco Maria Del Monte, around 1594/1595, and who remained close to him for many years thereafter.Scholars have had more than their usual level of disagreement in assigning a date to the painting: John T. Spike places it in 1596; Catherine Puglisi believes that 1601 is more probable; and practically every year in between has been advanced. Puglisi's reasoning seem solid, (the basket in this painting seems identical with the one in the first of Caravaggio's two versions of Supper at Emmaus - even the quince seems to be the same piece of fruit), but no consensus has emerged.In 1607 it was part of Cardinal Federico Borromeo’s collection, a provenance which raises the plausibility of a conscious reference to the Book of Amos. Borromeo, who was archbishop of Milan, was in Rome approximately 1597-1602 and a house guest of Del Monte in 1599. He had a special interest in the Northern European painters such as Paul Bril and Jan Brueghel the Elder, who were also in Rome at the time, (indeed, he took Breughel into his own household), and in the way they did landscapes and flowers in paintings as subjects in their own right, something not known at the time in Italian art. He would have seen the way Caravaggio did still life as incidental accessories in paintings such as Boy Bitten by a Lizard, Bacchus, in Del Monte's collection, and The Lute Player in the collection of Del Monte's friend Vincenzo Giustiniani. The scholarly Giustiniani wrote a treatise on painting years later, wherein, reflecting the hierarchical conventions of his day, he placed flowers "and other tiny things" only fifth on a twelve-scale register, but he said also that Caravaggio once said to him "that it used to take as much workmanship for him to do a good picture of flowers as it did to do one of human figures."
Like its doppelganger in Supper at Emmaus, the basket seems to teeter on the edge of the picture-space, in danger of falling out of the painting and into the viewer's space instead. In the Supper this is a dramatic device, part of the way in which Caravaggio creates the tension of the scene; here, trompe-l'œil seems to be almost the whole purpose of the painting, if we subtract the possible didactic element. But the single element that no doubt attracted its original owner, and still catches attention today, is the extraordinary quasi-photographic realism of the observation which underlies the illusionism. Basket of Fruit can be compared with the same artist's Still Life with Fruit (c. 1603), a painting which John Spike identifies as "the source of all subsequent Roman still-life paintings."
|
[
"John Spike",
"still life",
"Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio",
"trompe-l'œil",
"Jan Brueghel the Elder",
"Milan",
"Prospero Orsi",
"Cardinal Francesco Maria Del Monte",
"Boy Bitten by a Lizard",
"Baroque",
"Caravaggio",
"Vincenzo Giustiniani",
"Italian",
"Bacchus",
"The Lute Player",
"Supper at Emmaus",
"Paul Bril",
"Still Life with Fruit",
"John T. Spike",
"Biblioteca Ambrosiana",
"Federico Borromeo"
] |
|
13634_NT
|
Basket of Fruit (Caravaggio)
|
Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract.
|
Basket of Fruit (c.1599) is a still life painting by the Italian Baroque master Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571–1610), which hangs in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Ambrosian Library), Milan.
It shows a wicker basket perched on the edge of a ledge. The basket contains a selection of summer fruit:... a good-sized, light-red peach attached to a stem with wormholes in the leaf resembling damage by oriental fruit moth (Orthosia hibisci). Beneath it is a single bicolored apple, shown from a stem perspective with two insect entry holes, probably codling moth, one of which shows secondary rot at the edge; one blushed yellow pear with insect predations resembling damage by leaf roller (Archips argyospita); four figs, two white and two purple—the purple ones dead ripe and splitting along the sides, plus a large fig leaf with a prominent fungal scorch lesion resembling anthracnose (Glomerella cingulata); and a single unblemished quince with a leafy spur showing fungal spots. There are four clusters of grapes, black, red, golden, and white; the red cluster on the right shows several mummied fruit, while the two clusters on the left each show an overripe berry. There are two grape leaves, one severely desiccated and shriveled while the other contains spots and evidence of an egg mass. In the right part of the basket are two green figs and a ripe black one is nestled in the rear on the left. On the sides of the basket are two disembodied shoots: to the right is a grape shoot with two leaves, both showing severe insect predations resembling grasshopper feeding; to the left is a floating spur of quince or pear.
Much has been made of the worm-eaten, insect-predated, and generally less than perfect condition of the fruit. In line with the culture of the age, the general theme appears to revolve about the fading beauty, and the natural decaying of all things. Scholars also describe the basket of fruit as a metaphor of the Church.A recent X-ray study revealed that it was painted on an already used canvas painted with grotesques in the style of Caravaggio's friend Prospero Orsi, who helped the artist in his first breakthrough into the circles of collectors such as his first patron, Cardinal Francesco Maria Del Monte, around 1594/1595, and who remained close to him for many years thereafter.Scholars have had more than their usual level of disagreement in assigning a date to the painting: John T. Spike places it in 1596; Catherine Puglisi believes that 1601 is more probable; and practically every year in between has been advanced. Puglisi's reasoning seem solid, (the basket in this painting seems identical with the one in the first of Caravaggio's two versions of Supper at Emmaus - even the quince seems to be the same piece of fruit), but no consensus has emerged.In 1607 it was part of Cardinal Federico Borromeo’s collection, a provenance which raises the plausibility of a conscious reference to the Book of Amos. Borromeo, who was archbishop of Milan, was in Rome approximately 1597-1602 and a house guest of Del Monte in 1599. He had a special interest in the Northern European painters such as Paul Bril and Jan Brueghel the Elder, who were also in Rome at the time, (indeed, he took Breughel into his own household), and in the way they did landscapes and flowers in paintings as subjects in their own right, something not known at the time in Italian art. He would have seen the way Caravaggio did still life as incidental accessories in paintings such as Boy Bitten by a Lizard, Bacchus, in Del Monte's collection, and The Lute Player in the collection of Del Monte's friend Vincenzo Giustiniani. The scholarly Giustiniani wrote a treatise on painting years later, wherein, reflecting the hierarchical conventions of his day, he placed flowers "and other tiny things" only fifth on a twelve-scale register, but he said also that Caravaggio once said to him "that it used to take as much workmanship for him to do a good picture of flowers as it did to do one of human figures."
Like its doppelganger in Supper at Emmaus, the basket seems to teeter on the edge of the picture-space, in danger of falling out of the painting and into the viewer's space instead. In the Supper this is a dramatic device, part of the way in which Caravaggio creates the tension of the scene; here, trompe-l'œil seems to be almost the whole purpose of the painting, if we subtract the possible didactic element. But the single element that no doubt attracted its original owner, and still catches attention today, is the extraordinary quasi-photographic realism of the observation which underlies the illusionism. Basket of Fruit can be compared with the same artist's Still Life with Fruit (c. 1603), a painting which John Spike identifies as "the source of all subsequent Roman still-life paintings."
|
[
"John Spike",
"still life",
"Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio",
"trompe-l'œil",
"Jan Brueghel the Elder",
"Milan",
"Prospero Orsi",
"Cardinal Francesco Maria Del Monte",
"Boy Bitten by a Lizard",
"Baroque",
"Caravaggio",
"Vincenzo Giustiniani",
"Italian",
"Bacchus",
"The Lute Player",
"Supper at Emmaus",
"Paul Bril",
"Still Life with Fruit",
"John T. Spike",
"Biblioteca Ambrosiana",
"Federico Borromeo"
] |
|
13635_T
|
Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish
|
Focus on Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish and explain the History and provenance.
|
The original or intended location of the painting is unknown, though given its horizontal orientation and medium size, it may have been painted for the side wall of a chapel or as part of a cycle for a small school (scuola) somewhere in Veneto. The painting came into Cardinal Scipione Borghese's collection as a 1607 gift from Francesco Barbaro. An existing letter from Barbaro to Borghese documents that Barbaro sent two paintings by Veronese to Borghese separately, though the letter does not describe the paintings in much detail. The letter does note the two paintings depict "sermons"; the Galleria Borghese has owned two paintings depicting sermons—the Saint John the Baptist Preaching and Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish, both by Veronese—for quite some time. An account from a framer dated 25 July 1612 confirms the painting was located in Rome no later than 1612. Prior to their move to the Villa Borghese Pinciana (today's Galleria Borghese), the two "sermon" paintings had been placed at Palazzo Torlonia by 1613, when they were described in verse by the court poet Scipione Francucci.In 1893 art historian Adolfo Venturi attributed the painting to Veronese. In 1897 art critic Giovanni Morelli contested this attribution, instead attributing the painting to Giovanni Battista Zelotti. Percy Herbert Osmond and Theodor Hetzer also attributed the painting to Zelotti, in 1927 and 1946, respectively. Their doubts were based on the painting's poor pictorial quality, though at the time it had not been properly restored. Subsequently, many art historians reattributed the painting to Veronese, including Roberto Longhi and Giuseppe Fiocco in 1928, Rodolfo Pallucchini in 1944, and Terisio Pignatti and Filipo Pedrocco in 1995.The painting was treated or "restored" at least twice during the 20th century. In 1919 it was cleaned, with some small gaps plastered over and repainted, and its frame replaced. In 1947 the painting was washed and repainted. It is likely these restorations greatly obscured the painting's fine details—blurring it with a milky layer—as in 1648 Italian painter Claudio Ridolfi had described "fish [that] jump out of the water to hear [Saint Anthony] as if they understood him". These detailed fish were completely illegible prior to a June 2001 restoration.
In the most recent June 2001 restoration, the heavy varnish was removed, restoring light and color to the painting. A new thin protective varnish was applied by nebulization. Old fillings—which in many cases extended beyond the initial gaps—were removed, reducing the amount of retouching work needed. The existing frame was removed, as it did not allow for precise tensioning of the canvas. It was replaced by a new frame equipped with a traditional extension adjustment system. During the removal of the frame, the inscription "Paolo Veroneʃe" was discovered: it is not an original signature but functional information for the collector or art dealer.
|
[
"Scipione Borghese",
"Rome",
"Roberto Longhi",
"plaster",
"art dealer",
"Galleria Borghese",
"Francesco Barbaro",
"court poet",
"Theodor Hetzer",
"varnish",
"chapel",
"Saint John the Baptist Preaching",
"Palazzo Torlonia",
"collector",
"restoration",
"Giuseppe Fiocco",
"Veneto",
"Percy Herbert Osmond",
"framer",
"Villa Borghese Pinciana",
"Rodolfo Pallucchini",
"Giovanni Battista Zelotti",
"Giovanni Morelli",
"Adolfo Venturi",
"Claudio Ridolfi"
] |
|
13635_NT
|
Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish
|
Focus on this artwork and explain the History and provenance.
|
The original or intended location of the painting is unknown, though given its horizontal orientation and medium size, it may have been painted for the side wall of a chapel or as part of a cycle for a small school (scuola) somewhere in Veneto. The painting came into Cardinal Scipione Borghese's collection as a 1607 gift from Francesco Barbaro. An existing letter from Barbaro to Borghese documents that Barbaro sent two paintings by Veronese to Borghese separately, though the letter does not describe the paintings in much detail. The letter does note the two paintings depict "sermons"; the Galleria Borghese has owned two paintings depicting sermons—the Saint John the Baptist Preaching and Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish, both by Veronese—for quite some time. An account from a framer dated 25 July 1612 confirms the painting was located in Rome no later than 1612. Prior to their move to the Villa Borghese Pinciana (today's Galleria Borghese), the two "sermon" paintings had been placed at Palazzo Torlonia by 1613, when they were described in verse by the court poet Scipione Francucci.In 1893 art historian Adolfo Venturi attributed the painting to Veronese. In 1897 art critic Giovanni Morelli contested this attribution, instead attributing the painting to Giovanni Battista Zelotti. Percy Herbert Osmond and Theodor Hetzer also attributed the painting to Zelotti, in 1927 and 1946, respectively. Their doubts were based on the painting's poor pictorial quality, though at the time it had not been properly restored. Subsequently, many art historians reattributed the painting to Veronese, including Roberto Longhi and Giuseppe Fiocco in 1928, Rodolfo Pallucchini in 1944, and Terisio Pignatti and Filipo Pedrocco in 1995.The painting was treated or "restored" at least twice during the 20th century. In 1919 it was cleaned, with some small gaps plastered over and repainted, and its frame replaced. In 1947 the painting was washed and repainted. It is likely these restorations greatly obscured the painting's fine details—blurring it with a milky layer—as in 1648 Italian painter Claudio Ridolfi had described "fish [that] jump out of the water to hear [Saint Anthony] as if they understood him". These detailed fish were completely illegible prior to a June 2001 restoration.
In the most recent June 2001 restoration, the heavy varnish was removed, restoring light and color to the painting. A new thin protective varnish was applied by nebulization. Old fillings—which in many cases extended beyond the initial gaps—were removed, reducing the amount of retouching work needed. The existing frame was removed, as it did not allow for precise tensioning of the canvas. It was replaced by a new frame equipped with a traditional extension adjustment system. During the removal of the frame, the inscription "Paolo Veroneʃe" was discovered: it is not an original signature but functional information for the collector or art dealer.
|
[
"Scipione Borghese",
"Rome",
"Roberto Longhi",
"plaster",
"art dealer",
"Galleria Borghese",
"Francesco Barbaro",
"court poet",
"Theodor Hetzer",
"varnish",
"chapel",
"Saint John the Baptist Preaching",
"Palazzo Torlonia",
"collector",
"restoration",
"Giuseppe Fiocco",
"Veneto",
"Percy Herbert Osmond",
"framer",
"Villa Borghese Pinciana",
"Rodolfo Pallucchini",
"Giovanni Battista Zelotti",
"Giovanni Morelli",
"Adolfo Venturi",
"Claudio Ridolfi"
] |
|
13636_T
|
Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish
|
Explore the Description of this artwork, Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish.
|
Compositionally, the painting is oriented horizontally. From left to right it is split into two halves. The left half contains mostly dark blue-green sea and the fish within it, with boats and a mountainous shoreline visible in the distance at extreme center-left. The sea is calm. The painting's right half shows the Rimini coastline upon which Saint Anthony and a crowd of bystanders are gathered, with the city and spires of Rimini visible in the distance at extreme center-right. From top to bottom, the painting may be considered split into three parts. The top third is mostly blue sky with white clouds, though the figure of Saint Anthony also extends into this area. The bottom two-thirds depict the sea, shoreline, and crowd of bystanders.
Veronese places Saint Anthony atop a rock, raising him above the bystanders and focusing attention on his figure. The rock is almost triangular in shape, jutting out into space as if it were the prow of a ship, thereby implying Anthony is a helmsman guiding the church or serving as a beacon of faith. Anthony, dressed in light gray-blue robes and holding a bunch of white lilies, points down to the fish but is turned toward and looks at the human listeners with a somewhat serious or even castigating expression. Veronese painted Anthony taller than he should be relative to the bystanders—a perspectival anachronism—in order to increase the saint's monumental bearing. He is further accentuated by his asymmetric positioning relative to the overall canvas. Anthony's orientation toward the listeners appears to be inspired by that of Jesus in Tintoretto's circa 1579–1581 Multiplication of Bread and Fishes at the Scuola Grande di San Rocco in Venice.Not including Anthony, there are at least sixteen distinguishable bystanders in the painting, with some dark shapes behind these sixteen figures suggesting an even larger crowd. Of these listeners, only one looks directly at Saint Anthony: this figure, dressed in yellow robes and with his right hand over his heart as a sign of devotion, is thought to be a self-portrait of Veronese. The other figures look either at each other or the fish in amazement. Some of them sit or lean on rock formations. Though the scene is meant to take place in Rimini, some of the figures appear to be non-Italian foreigners, including Turks, Jews, and a Moor. The two Turks in the bottom right corner of the foreground are dressed in striking reddish robes. The rightmost Turk has his back turned to the viewer and his face is not visible. He wears black boots and a yellow turban with a red cockade, addressing his compatriot while gesturing at the fish with his left arm. This figure may have been inspired by a similar one depicted in the bottom center of the 1498 Albrecht Dürer engraving The Whore of Babylon. The leftmost Turk wears a white turban and looks toward the fish incredulously or in amazement.
Like the Turks, the figures thought to be Jews are arguing amongst themselves and pointing to the fish. They are identified as Jews because their headdresses are similar in appearance to ones used in Veronese's later painting Christ among the Doctors, which depicts Jesus in discussion with the rabbis. Other notable figures in Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish include a white-bearded elderly man visible in between the two red-robed Turks who looks directly at the viewer—as if to pity the common state of sinners—and may be a portrait of Tintoretto; at far right, a restless-looking child tugging at the dress of the bare-chested woman sitting next to him; and to the right of Anthony, a friar also wearing a light blue robe who is half hidden by the rock and lowers his eyes, overwhelmed. Across from the friar to Anthony's left, another three figures are visible near the shoreline: the leftmost figure sits right at the edge of the shore and looks up either at their adjacent bearded companion or Anthony; the middle figure is a bearded man dressed in red and black standing and looking down at the fish; and the last leftmost figure is completely obscured by the rock except for their footwear and the hem of their yellowish robe.
|
[
"Rimini",
"Jesus",
"lilies",
"cockade",
"self-portrait",
"Turks",
"anachronism",
"Jesus in discussion with the rabbis",
"Tintoretto",
"Moor",
"prow",
"perspectival",
"Scuola Grande di San Rocco",
"hem",
"turban",
"spire",
"helmsman",
"Jews",
"Christ among the Doctors",
"friar",
"asymmetric",
"left",
"engraving",
"Albrecht Dürer"
] |
|
13636_NT
|
Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish
|
Explore the Description of this artwork.
|
Compositionally, the painting is oriented horizontally. From left to right it is split into two halves. The left half contains mostly dark blue-green sea and the fish within it, with boats and a mountainous shoreline visible in the distance at extreme center-left. The sea is calm. The painting's right half shows the Rimini coastline upon which Saint Anthony and a crowd of bystanders are gathered, with the city and spires of Rimini visible in the distance at extreme center-right. From top to bottom, the painting may be considered split into three parts. The top third is mostly blue sky with white clouds, though the figure of Saint Anthony also extends into this area. The bottom two-thirds depict the sea, shoreline, and crowd of bystanders.
Veronese places Saint Anthony atop a rock, raising him above the bystanders and focusing attention on his figure. The rock is almost triangular in shape, jutting out into space as if it were the prow of a ship, thereby implying Anthony is a helmsman guiding the church or serving as a beacon of faith. Anthony, dressed in light gray-blue robes and holding a bunch of white lilies, points down to the fish but is turned toward and looks at the human listeners with a somewhat serious or even castigating expression. Veronese painted Anthony taller than he should be relative to the bystanders—a perspectival anachronism—in order to increase the saint's monumental bearing. He is further accentuated by his asymmetric positioning relative to the overall canvas. Anthony's orientation toward the listeners appears to be inspired by that of Jesus in Tintoretto's circa 1579–1581 Multiplication of Bread and Fishes at the Scuola Grande di San Rocco in Venice.Not including Anthony, there are at least sixteen distinguishable bystanders in the painting, with some dark shapes behind these sixteen figures suggesting an even larger crowd. Of these listeners, only one looks directly at Saint Anthony: this figure, dressed in yellow robes and with his right hand over his heart as a sign of devotion, is thought to be a self-portrait of Veronese. The other figures look either at each other or the fish in amazement. Some of them sit or lean on rock formations. Though the scene is meant to take place in Rimini, some of the figures appear to be non-Italian foreigners, including Turks, Jews, and a Moor. The two Turks in the bottom right corner of the foreground are dressed in striking reddish robes. The rightmost Turk has his back turned to the viewer and his face is not visible. He wears black boots and a yellow turban with a red cockade, addressing his compatriot while gesturing at the fish with his left arm. This figure may have been inspired by a similar one depicted in the bottom center of the 1498 Albrecht Dürer engraving The Whore of Babylon. The leftmost Turk wears a white turban and looks toward the fish incredulously or in amazement.
Like the Turks, the figures thought to be Jews are arguing amongst themselves and pointing to the fish. They are identified as Jews because their headdresses are similar in appearance to ones used in Veronese's later painting Christ among the Doctors, which depicts Jesus in discussion with the rabbis. Other notable figures in Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish include a white-bearded elderly man visible in between the two red-robed Turks who looks directly at the viewer—as if to pity the common state of sinners—and may be a portrait of Tintoretto; at far right, a restless-looking child tugging at the dress of the bare-chested woman sitting next to him; and to the right of Anthony, a friar also wearing a light blue robe who is half hidden by the rock and lowers his eyes, overwhelmed. Across from the friar to Anthony's left, another three figures are visible near the shoreline: the leftmost figure sits right at the edge of the shore and looks up either at their adjacent bearded companion or Anthony; the middle figure is a bearded man dressed in red and black standing and looking down at the fish; and the last leftmost figure is completely obscured by the rock except for their footwear and the hem of their yellowish robe.
|
[
"Rimini",
"Jesus",
"lilies",
"cockade",
"self-portrait",
"Turks",
"anachronism",
"Jesus in discussion with the rabbis",
"Tintoretto",
"Moor",
"prow",
"perspectival",
"Scuola Grande di San Rocco",
"hem",
"turban",
"spire",
"helmsman",
"Jews",
"Christ among the Doctors",
"friar",
"asymmetric",
"left",
"engraving",
"Albrecht Dürer"
] |
|
13637_T
|
Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish
|
Focus on Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish and discuss the Analysis.
|
Veronese completed this painting not long after he was interrogated by the Inquisition in Venice on suspicion of heresy. The inquisitors considered Veronese's depiction of the Last Supper inappropriately sumptuous and festive, and they forced him to alter his painting into one of The Feast in the House of Levi. This may help explain Veronese's choice of subject matter in Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish, including his humbling self-portrait, the sympathetic portrait of Tintoretto, and the sumptuous treatment of the bystanders.Representations of the sermon to the fish—though not unprecedented before Veronese—are rare in Antonian iconography. Any such representations are usually included as part of larger cycles showing multiple events or miracles in Saint Anthony's life, rather than being standalone works. Some examples perhaps known to Veronese include a 1520 work located in the ante-sacristy of the Basilica of Saint Anthony of Padua and attributed to Gian Martino Tranzapani; the 1535–1537 half lunette fresco by Girolamo Tessari located at the Santuario del Noce in Camposampiero; and a 15th-century cycle by Domenico Morone at San Bernardino, Verona, which was likely still extant during Veronese's lifetime. Since it no longer exists, it is unknown for certain whether Morone's cycle depicted the sermon to the fish. Other known depictions of Saint Anthony preaching to fish include an anonymous 1480 woodcut indicating the sermon occurred in Ravenna (rather than in Rimini), and a circa 1510–1520 engraving probably of Paduan origin with ten panels illustrating Anthony's miracles, including the sermon to the fish. An image of the sermon also appears in the frontispiece of the Compendio volgare della vita & miracolose opere di Santo Antonio ("Vulgar Compendium of the life & miraculous works of Saint Anthony") by Ippolito da Ponte, printed in Venice in 1532.Although representations of the sermon were less widespread than those of other Antonian miracles, the event had a certain fame. Even before Ippolito da Ponte's publication it was extensively treated in Chapter 40 of The Little Flowers of St. Francis, where it is placed firmly in Rimini. Previous writings gave no precise location for the sermon. According to legend, Anthony of Padua was preaching in Romagna to Cathar heretics, who initially rebuffed him. Anthony preached instead to the fish, after which many people came to witness the miracle and hear the sermon. The legend derives from and is related to Francis of Assisi's sermon to the birds, which was itself a common theme in religious paintings: one example of many is the circa 1290–1295 Giotto painting Predica agli uccelli ("Sermon to the Birds").Curiously, the expedient of placing Anthony on a rock or otherwise well above the bystanders is not used in any of the depictions Veronese may have known. It was used as early as the 14th century in stained glass windows at the Basilica of Saint Francis of Assisi, and in the early 1500s by Girolamo Santacroce at the Altar of Saint Anthony in Sant'Anna dei Lombardi Church in Naples, but it is highly unlikely Veronese ever saw either work.
|
[
"Cathar",
"Rimini",
"Last Supper",
"Naples",
"Camposampiero",
"self-portrait",
"Ravenna",
"Basilica of Saint Anthony of Padua",
"Little Flowers of St. Francis",
"lunette",
"Francis of Assisi",
"fresco",
"sermon to the birds",
"Romagna",
"Tintoretto",
"stained glass",
"frontispiece",
"religious paintings",
"Altar",
"San Bernardino, Verona",
"Gian Martino Tranzapani",
"Anthony of Padua",
"Inquisition",
"miracle",
"heresy",
"Santuario del Noce",
"Girolamo Santacroce",
"hem",
"Basilica of Saint Francis of Assisi",
"sacristy",
"Giotto",
"Girolamo Tessari",
"iconography",
"The Feast in the House of Levi",
"woodcut",
"engraving",
"Vulgar",
"Sant'Anna dei Lombardi",
"Predica agli uccelli",
"sermon to the fish",
"Domenico Morone"
] |
|
13637_NT
|
Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish
|
Focus on this artwork and discuss the Analysis.
|
Veronese completed this painting not long after he was interrogated by the Inquisition in Venice on suspicion of heresy. The inquisitors considered Veronese's depiction of the Last Supper inappropriately sumptuous and festive, and they forced him to alter his painting into one of The Feast in the House of Levi. This may help explain Veronese's choice of subject matter in Saint Anthony Preaching to the Fish, including his humbling self-portrait, the sympathetic portrait of Tintoretto, and the sumptuous treatment of the bystanders.Representations of the sermon to the fish—though not unprecedented before Veronese—are rare in Antonian iconography. Any such representations are usually included as part of larger cycles showing multiple events or miracles in Saint Anthony's life, rather than being standalone works. Some examples perhaps known to Veronese include a 1520 work located in the ante-sacristy of the Basilica of Saint Anthony of Padua and attributed to Gian Martino Tranzapani; the 1535–1537 half lunette fresco by Girolamo Tessari located at the Santuario del Noce in Camposampiero; and a 15th-century cycle by Domenico Morone at San Bernardino, Verona, which was likely still extant during Veronese's lifetime. Since it no longer exists, it is unknown for certain whether Morone's cycle depicted the sermon to the fish. Other known depictions of Saint Anthony preaching to fish include an anonymous 1480 woodcut indicating the sermon occurred in Ravenna (rather than in Rimini), and a circa 1510–1520 engraving probably of Paduan origin with ten panels illustrating Anthony's miracles, including the sermon to the fish. An image of the sermon also appears in the frontispiece of the Compendio volgare della vita & miracolose opere di Santo Antonio ("Vulgar Compendium of the life & miraculous works of Saint Anthony") by Ippolito da Ponte, printed in Venice in 1532.Although representations of the sermon were less widespread than those of other Antonian miracles, the event had a certain fame. Even before Ippolito da Ponte's publication it was extensively treated in Chapter 40 of The Little Flowers of St. Francis, where it is placed firmly in Rimini. Previous writings gave no precise location for the sermon. According to legend, Anthony of Padua was preaching in Romagna to Cathar heretics, who initially rebuffed him. Anthony preached instead to the fish, after which many people came to witness the miracle and hear the sermon. The legend derives from and is related to Francis of Assisi's sermon to the birds, which was itself a common theme in religious paintings: one example of many is the circa 1290–1295 Giotto painting Predica agli uccelli ("Sermon to the Birds").Curiously, the expedient of placing Anthony on a rock or otherwise well above the bystanders is not used in any of the depictions Veronese may have known. It was used as early as the 14th century in stained glass windows at the Basilica of Saint Francis of Assisi, and in the early 1500s by Girolamo Santacroce at the Altar of Saint Anthony in Sant'Anna dei Lombardi Church in Naples, but it is highly unlikely Veronese ever saw either work.
|
[
"Cathar",
"Rimini",
"Last Supper",
"Naples",
"Camposampiero",
"self-portrait",
"Ravenna",
"Basilica of Saint Anthony of Padua",
"Little Flowers of St. Francis",
"lunette",
"Francis of Assisi",
"fresco",
"sermon to the birds",
"Romagna",
"Tintoretto",
"stained glass",
"frontispiece",
"religious paintings",
"Altar",
"San Bernardino, Verona",
"Gian Martino Tranzapani",
"Anthony of Padua",
"Inquisition",
"miracle",
"heresy",
"Santuario del Noce",
"Girolamo Santacroce",
"hem",
"Basilica of Saint Francis of Assisi",
"sacristy",
"Giotto",
"Girolamo Tessari",
"iconography",
"The Feast in the House of Levi",
"woodcut",
"engraving",
"Vulgar",
"Sant'Anna dei Lombardi",
"Predica agli uccelli",
"sermon to the fish",
"Domenico Morone"
] |
|
13638_T
|
Rocket Thrower
|
How does Rocket Thrower elucidate its abstract?
|
Rocket Thrower is a 1963 bronze sculpture by American sculptor Donald De Lue. Created for the 1964 New York World's Fair, it is located in Flushing Meadows–Corona Park in Queens, New York City. De Lue was among a total of five sculptors who would create pieces for the fairground. He was contracted in 1962 for the amount of $105,000 with a deadline for completion of under six months. De Lue completed a full plaster model in 1963 at which time it was sent to Italy to be cast.
|
[
"Donald De Lue",
"New York City",
"Flushing Meadows–Corona Park",
"bronze sculpture",
"Queens",
"Queens, New York City",
"sculptor",
"1964 New York World's Fair"
] |
|
13638_NT
|
Rocket Thrower
|
How does this artwork elucidate its abstract?
|
Rocket Thrower is a 1963 bronze sculpture by American sculptor Donald De Lue. Created for the 1964 New York World's Fair, it is located in Flushing Meadows–Corona Park in Queens, New York City. De Lue was among a total of five sculptors who would create pieces for the fairground. He was contracted in 1962 for the amount of $105,000 with a deadline for completion of under six months. De Lue completed a full plaster model in 1963 at which time it was sent to Italy to be cast.
|
[
"Donald De Lue",
"New York City",
"Flushing Meadows–Corona Park",
"bronze sculpture",
"Queens",
"Queens, New York City",
"sculptor",
"1964 New York World's Fair"
] |
|
13639_T
|
Rocket Thrower
|
Focus on Rocket Thrower and analyze the Description.
|
Rocket Thrower stands 43 feet (13 metres) high and depicts an athletic and god-like man launching, with his right hand, a small sphere into the sky which leaves an arcing trail of flames behind. His left hand is raised skyward and reaches for a swirl of stars which encircle the path of the rocket. Rocket Thrower's left leg strains and crouches with his left foot planted on an arched perch. His right leg extends out fluidly. On the front of the perch (facing the Unisphere) are three distinct stars arranged in an angled line across its short width.
Over time the statue has been affected by corrosion, and its structural integrity has diminished. One arm was repaired in 1989. The statue was significantly restored in 2013.The structure's location is East of Unisphere in the Hall of Astronauts. [1]
|
[
"Unisphere",
"corrosion"
] |
|
13639_NT
|
Rocket Thrower
|
Focus on this artwork and analyze the Description.
|
Rocket Thrower stands 43 feet (13 metres) high and depicts an athletic and god-like man launching, with his right hand, a small sphere into the sky which leaves an arcing trail of flames behind. His left hand is raised skyward and reaches for a swirl of stars which encircle the path of the rocket. Rocket Thrower's left leg strains and crouches with his left foot planted on an arched perch. His right leg extends out fluidly. On the front of the perch (facing the Unisphere) are three distinct stars arranged in an angled line across its short width.
Over time the statue has been affected by corrosion, and its structural integrity has diminished. One arm was repaired in 1989. The statue was significantly restored in 2013.The structure's location is East of Unisphere in the Hall of Astronauts. [1]
|
[
"Unisphere",
"corrosion"
] |
|
13640_T
|
Rocket Thrower
|
In Rocket Thrower, how is the Reception discussed?
|
When released, the critics of the time had mixed reviews of the work. De Lue explained the work as "the spiritual concept of man’s relationship to space and his venturesome spirit backed up by all the powers of his intelligence for the exploration of a new dimension." However, The New York Times art critic John Canaday described it as "the most lamentable monster, making Walt Disney look like Leonardo Da Vinci."
|
[
"John Canaday",
"Walt Disney",
"The New York Times",
"Leonardo Da Vinci"
] |
|
13640_NT
|
Rocket Thrower
|
In this artwork, how is the Reception discussed?
|
When released, the critics of the time had mixed reviews of the work. De Lue explained the work as "the spiritual concept of man’s relationship to space and his venturesome spirit backed up by all the powers of his intelligence for the exploration of a new dimension." However, The New York Times art critic John Canaday described it as "the most lamentable monster, making Walt Disney look like Leonardo Da Vinci."
|
[
"John Canaday",
"Walt Disney",
"The New York Times",
"Leonardo Da Vinci"
] |
|
13641_T
|
Midsummer Night near Vejle Fjord
|
Focus on Midsummer Night near Vejle Fjord and explore the abstract.
|
Midsummer Night near Vejle Fjord is a painting by Harald Slott-Møller, dated 1904.
|
[
"Midsummer",
"Vejle",
"Harald Slott-Møller",
"Vejle Fjord"
] |
|
13641_NT
|
Midsummer Night near Vejle Fjord
|
Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract.
|
Midsummer Night near Vejle Fjord is a painting by Harald Slott-Møller, dated 1904.
|
[
"Midsummer",
"Vejle",
"Harald Slott-Møller",
"Vejle Fjord"
] |
|
13642_T
|
Midsummer Night near Vejle Fjord
|
Focus on Midsummer Night near Vejle Fjord and explain the Analysis.
|
It is a landscape painting, but can also be regarded as a portrait painting, since the artist's wife, Agnes Slott-Møller, certainly is the seated woman looking out over the Vejle Fjord on Midsummer night.This painting is characterized by an unusual use of color, especially in the woman's prominent red cape. While Harald Slott-Møller's work was based on naturalism and symbolism, the surface and the colors are also considered to have symbolic significance in this painting.
|
[
"Midsummer",
"Vejle",
"Harald Slott-Møller",
"Vejle Fjord"
] |
|
13642_NT
|
Midsummer Night near Vejle Fjord
|
Focus on this artwork and explain the Analysis.
|
It is a landscape painting, but can also be regarded as a portrait painting, since the artist's wife, Agnes Slott-Møller, certainly is the seated woman looking out over the Vejle Fjord on Midsummer night.This painting is characterized by an unusual use of color, especially in the woman's prominent red cape. While Harald Slott-Møller's work was based on naturalism and symbolism, the surface and the colors are also considered to have symbolic significance in this painting.
|
[
"Midsummer",
"Vejle",
"Harald Slott-Møller",
"Vejle Fjord"
] |
|
13643_T
|
Midsummer Night near Vejle Fjord
|
Explore the Europeana 280 of this artwork, Midsummer Night near Vejle Fjord.
|
In April 2016, this painting was selected as one of the ten most important artistic works from Denmark for the Europeana project.
|
[
"Europeana"
] |
|
13643_NT
|
Midsummer Night near Vejle Fjord
|
Explore the Europeana 280 of this artwork.
|
In April 2016, this painting was selected as one of the ten most important artistic works from Denmark for the Europeana project.
|
[
"Europeana"
] |
|
13644_T
|
Fano Altarpiece
|
Focus on Fano Altarpiece and discuss the abstract.
|
The Fano Altarpiece is a painting by the Italian Renaissance artist Pietro Perugino, executed in 1497, and housed in the church of Santa Maria Nuova, Fano, central Italy. It also includes a lunette with a Pietà and several predella panels.
Perugino had already painted an Annunciation in 1488-1490. Several scholars have supposed that a young Raphael collaborated on the predella.
|
[
"Fano",
"Annunciation",
"Raphael",
"Pietro Perugino",
"lunette",
"predella"
] |
|
13644_NT
|
Fano Altarpiece
|
Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract.
|
The Fano Altarpiece is a painting by the Italian Renaissance artist Pietro Perugino, executed in 1497, and housed in the church of Santa Maria Nuova, Fano, central Italy. It also includes a lunette with a Pietà and several predella panels.
Perugino had already painted an Annunciation in 1488-1490. Several scholars have supposed that a young Raphael collaborated on the predella.
|
[
"Fano",
"Annunciation",
"Raphael",
"Pietro Perugino",
"lunette",
"predella"
] |
|
13645_T
|
The Storyteller (sculpture)
|
How does The Storyteller (sculpture) elucidate its abstract?
|
The Storyteller, also known as the Ken Kesey Memorial, is an outdoor bronze sculpture by Pete Helzer, installed at Kesey Square (located at Broadway and Willamette Street) in Eugene, Oregon, in the United States. Unveiled in 2003, it depicts American novelist, essayist, and countercultural figure Ken Kesey reading to his three grandchildren, Kate Smith, Caleb Kesey and Jordan Smith. Plaques on the base of the sculpture contain excerpts from Kesey's novels One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1962) and Sometimes a Great Notion (1964).
|
[
"Sometimes a Great Notion",
"Pete Helzer",
"bronze sculpture",
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest",
"Kesey Square",
"Ken Kesey",
"Eugene, Oregon"
] |
|
13645_NT
|
The Storyteller (sculpture)
|
How does this artwork elucidate its abstract?
|
The Storyteller, also known as the Ken Kesey Memorial, is an outdoor bronze sculpture by Pete Helzer, installed at Kesey Square (located at Broadway and Willamette Street) in Eugene, Oregon, in the United States. Unveiled in 2003, it depicts American novelist, essayist, and countercultural figure Ken Kesey reading to his three grandchildren, Kate Smith, Caleb Kesey and Jordan Smith. Plaques on the base of the sculpture contain excerpts from Kesey's novels One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1962) and Sometimes a Great Notion (1964).
|
[
"Sometimes a Great Notion",
"Pete Helzer",
"bronze sculpture",
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest",
"Kesey Square",
"Ken Kesey",
"Eugene, Oregon"
] |
|
13646_T
|
The Storyteller (sculpture)
|
Focus on The Storyteller (sculpture) and analyze the History.
|
According to Art Daily, the estimated cost of US$120,000 was covered by a variety of sources, "including Phil Knight, Paul Newman, Michael Douglas, Mason Williams, Miloš Forman, Phil Lesh, Bob Weir, Tom Robbins, Larry McMurtry, Jean Auel, Tom Wolfe, Ed McClanahan, Kenny Moore, Sterling Lord, Dale Wasserman, Rolling Stone magazine, Viking Penguin, Rich Brooks, Dave Frohnmayer, Brian Booth, the Chambers Foundation, and Bill Walton".In October 2016, the Eugene City Council began considering a proposal from a local development group to buy the square, remove the sculpture, and replace the open space with apartments. Kesey Square (formerly known as Broadway Plaza), in downtown Eugene, is viewed as "valuable open space by some and as an eyesore by others". Some downtown merchants have complained about nuisance behavior of "travelers", transients who gather at the plaza, using drugs or alcohol, harassing customers.A local merchant who owns property adjacent to the square submitted a second proposal, an update of his 1995 proposal that the Council had rejected. That proposal is to remove brick walls around the square, building a brewery and kitchen incubator, but leaving the sculpture intact. A supporter of the "Save Kesey Square" Facebook page expressed the sentiment, "Public space creates and increases consciousness about what we can create and what we can imagine."According to The Register-Guard, "The city is considering three options for the space: its sale or lease for private redevelopment (including plans for a six-story apartment building with first-floor eateries and retail shops); a public improvement project; or leaving it as is."
|
[
"Tom Wolfe",
"Jean Auel",
"Rolling Stone",
"Miloš Forman",
"Phil Lesh",
"Kesey Square",
"Dale Wasserman",
"Bob Weir",
"Bill Walton",
"Phil Knight",
"Ed McClanahan",
"Mason Williams",
"Paul Newman",
"Viking Penguin",
"Rich Brooks",
"The Register-Guard",
"Michael Douglas",
"Kenny Moore",
"Dave Frohnmayer",
"Sterling Lord",
"Larry McMurtry",
"Tom Robbins"
] |
|
13646_NT
|
The Storyteller (sculpture)
|
Focus on this artwork and analyze the History.
|
According to Art Daily, the estimated cost of US$120,000 was covered by a variety of sources, "including Phil Knight, Paul Newman, Michael Douglas, Mason Williams, Miloš Forman, Phil Lesh, Bob Weir, Tom Robbins, Larry McMurtry, Jean Auel, Tom Wolfe, Ed McClanahan, Kenny Moore, Sterling Lord, Dale Wasserman, Rolling Stone magazine, Viking Penguin, Rich Brooks, Dave Frohnmayer, Brian Booth, the Chambers Foundation, and Bill Walton".In October 2016, the Eugene City Council began considering a proposal from a local development group to buy the square, remove the sculpture, and replace the open space with apartments. Kesey Square (formerly known as Broadway Plaza), in downtown Eugene, is viewed as "valuable open space by some and as an eyesore by others". Some downtown merchants have complained about nuisance behavior of "travelers", transients who gather at the plaza, using drugs or alcohol, harassing customers.A local merchant who owns property adjacent to the square submitted a second proposal, an update of his 1995 proposal that the Council had rejected. That proposal is to remove brick walls around the square, building a brewery and kitchen incubator, but leaving the sculpture intact. A supporter of the "Save Kesey Square" Facebook page expressed the sentiment, "Public space creates and increases consciousness about what we can create and what we can imagine."According to The Register-Guard, "The city is considering three options for the space: its sale or lease for private redevelopment (including plans for a six-story apartment building with first-floor eateries and retail shops); a public improvement project; or leaving it as is."
|
[
"Tom Wolfe",
"Jean Auel",
"Rolling Stone",
"Miloš Forman",
"Phil Lesh",
"Kesey Square",
"Dale Wasserman",
"Bob Weir",
"Bill Walton",
"Phil Knight",
"Ed McClanahan",
"Mason Williams",
"Paul Newman",
"Viking Penguin",
"Rich Brooks",
"The Register-Guard",
"Michael Douglas",
"Kenny Moore",
"Dave Frohnmayer",
"Sterling Lord",
"Larry McMurtry",
"Tom Robbins"
] |
|
13647_T
|
Antinous Mondragone
|
In Antinous Mondragone, how is the abstract discussed?
|
The Antinous Mondragone is a 0.95-metre (3 ft 1 in) high marble example of the Mondragone type of the deified Antinous. This colossal head was made sometime in the period between 130 AD to 138 AD and then is believed to have been rediscovered in the early 18th century, near the ruined Roman city, Tusculum. After its rediscovery, it was housed at the Villa Mondragone as a part of the Borghese collection, and in 1807, it was sold to Napoleon Bonaparte; it is now housed in the Louvre in Paris, France.This acrolithic sculpture was produced during the rule of Emperor Hadrian, who ruled from 117 AD until he died in 138 AD. It is widely accepted that Hadrian had kept Antinous as his lover and that they had a sexual relationship. However, this relationship did not accumulate much documentation, so a great deal of the details are left unknown. As a result of this, there are now many theories surrounding the subject of their relationship as well as the controversial death of Antinous in 130 AD.
This sculpture was produced as one of many pieces of art made within the cult of Antinous, a cult that is accepted to have formed out of the grief Hadrian harnessed over the death of Antinous. Out of the three distinct types of Antinous cult statues, this piece falls under the Mondragone type, which can be identified by the unique hairstyle that works as a reference to the Greek god, Dionysus.
|
[
"Napoleon",
"cult statue",
"deified",
"Dionysus",
"Paris, France",
"Borghese collection",
"Mondragone",
"marble",
"Hadrian",
"Emperor Hadrian",
"Napoleon Bonaparte",
"Louvre",
"Antinous",
"acrolith",
"Paris",
"left",
"Tusculum",
"Villa Mondragone"
] |
|
13647_NT
|
Antinous Mondragone
|
In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed?
|
The Antinous Mondragone is a 0.95-metre (3 ft 1 in) high marble example of the Mondragone type of the deified Antinous. This colossal head was made sometime in the period between 130 AD to 138 AD and then is believed to have been rediscovered in the early 18th century, near the ruined Roman city, Tusculum. After its rediscovery, it was housed at the Villa Mondragone as a part of the Borghese collection, and in 1807, it was sold to Napoleon Bonaparte; it is now housed in the Louvre in Paris, France.This acrolithic sculpture was produced during the rule of Emperor Hadrian, who ruled from 117 AD until he died in 138 AD. It is widely accepted that Hadrian had kept Antinous as his lover and that they had a sexual relationship. However, this relationship did not accumulate much documentation, so a great deal of the details are left unknown. As a result of this, there are now many theories surrounding the subject of their relationship as well as the controversial death of Antinous in 130 AD.
This sculpture was produced as one of many pieces of art made within the cult of Antinous, a cult that is accepted to have formed out of the grief Hadrian harnessed over the death of Antinous. Out of the three distinct types of Antinous cult statues, this piece falls under the Mondragone type, which can be identified by the unique hairstyle that works as a reference to the Greek god, Dionysus.
|
[
"Napoleon",
"cult statue",
"deified",
"Dionysus",
"Paris, France",
"Borghese collection",
"Mondragone",
"marble",
"Hadrian",
"Emperor Hadrian",
"Napoleon Bonaparte",
"Louvre",
"Antinous",
"acrolith",
"Paris",
"left",
"Tusculum",
"Villa Mondragone"
] |
|
13648_T
|
Antinous Mondragone
|
Focus on Antinous Mondragone and explore the Description.
|
This sculpture can be identified as Antinous from the striated eyebrows, full pouting lips, somber expression, and the head's twist down and to the right (reminiscent of that of the Lemnian Athena), whilst its smooth skin and elaborate, center-parted hair mirror those of Hellenistic images of Dionysus (his Roman equivalent being Bacchus) and Apollo. In reference to Dionysus, the side locks of hair that are seen on either side of this Antinous head can also be found on Dionysus, furthering a connection between the two through hairstyle. The ancient geographer, Pausanias, was the only writer who provided some type of iconographic 'pointers' towards the understanding of Antinous art, and he found that there were similarities in some figures of Antinous, such as the Antinous of Mantineia, and Dionysus.The Mondragone head formed part of a colossal acrolithic cult statue for the worship of Antinous as a god. Acrolithic statues were made using a technique in which artists used a combination of wood and some type of stone to construct their sculptures. In the case of the Antinous Mondragone, marble was the stone of choice. Per the technique, the marble would have only been used where body parts were visible, in places such as the head where the marble would be depicting their flesh. Whereas the wood would have been used to craft the clothed portions of the statue. This technique is said to have been used more often in areas where the cost of fine materials, such as marble, may have been too costly or not readily available.
Thirty-one holes in three different sizes have been drilled for the attachment of a garland of some type (possibly made of ivy or vine leaves) in metal. This head decoration is argued to have been some sort of tainia, a part of costume dress that would be worn around the head by the Greeks during festivals, and could also be shown worn in cult images. The sculpture's eyes have been lost; however, they are thought to have been made in either bronze, ivory, or some type of colored stone.
|
[
"cult statue",
"Bacchus",
"Pausanias",
"Dionysus",
"Acrolith",
"Hellenistic",
"Mondragone",
"Lemnian Athena",
"marble",
"ivory",
"Antinous",
"acrolith",
"bronze",
"tainia",
"Apollo",
"Mantineia",
"ivy"
] |
|
13648_NT
|
Antinous Mondragone
|
Focus on this artwork and explore the Description.
|
This sculpture can be identified as Antinous from the striated eyebrows, full pouting lips, somber expression, and the head's twist down and to the right (reminiscent of that of the Lemnian Athena), whilst its smooth skin and elaborate, center-parted hair mirror those of Hellenistic images of Dionysus (his Roman equivalent being Bacchus) and Apollo. In reference to Dionysus, the side locks of hair that are seen on either side of this Antinous head can also be found on Dionysus, furthering a connection between the two through hairstyle. The ancient geographer, Pausanias, was the only writer who provided some type of iconographic 'pointers' towards the understanding of Antinous art, and he found that there were similarities in some figures of Antinous, such as the Antinous of Mantineia, and Dionysus.The Mondragone head formed part of a colossal acrolithic cult statue for the worship of Antinous as a god. Acrolithic statues were made using a technique in which artists used a combination of wood and some type of stone to construct their sculptures. In the case of the Antinous Mondragone, marble was the stone of choice. Per the technique, the marble would have only been used where body parts were visible, in places such as the head where the marble would be depicting their flesh. Whereas the wood would have been used to craft the clothed portions of the statue. This technique is said to have been used more often in areas where the cost of fine materials, such as marble, may have been too costly or not readily available.
Thirty-one holes in three different sizes have been drilled for the attachment of a garland of some type (possibly made of ivy or vine leaves) in metal. This head decoration is argued to have been some sort of tainia, a part of costume dress that would be worn around the head by the Greeks during festivals, and could also be shown worn in cult images. The sculpture's eyes have been lost; however, they are thought to have been made in either bronze, ivory, or some type of colored stone.
|
[
"cult statue",
"Bacchus",
"Pausanias",
"Dionysus",
"Acrolith",
"Hellenistic",
"Mondragone",
"Lemnian Athena",
"marble",
"ivory",
"Antinous",
"acrolith",
"bronze",
"tainia",
"Apollo",
"Mantineia",
"ivy"
] |
|
13649_T
|
Antinous Mondragone
|
In the context of Antinous Mondragone, explain the Style of the Description.
|
Most art of Antinous can be categorized into one of the three distinct styles; the Main type, the Egyptianizing type, or the Mondragone type. The Main type includes two variants; variant A and variant B, both of which can be differentiated by looking at the arrangement of the locks of hair on the forehead. Art historian Caroline Vout argues that the use of the 'lock-scheme' method, in regards to the Main type, is not a sure way to conclude whether or not a piece should be disqualified from a certain type, but it would be a large contributing factor. The Egyptianizing type, much like the Mondragone type, helps get across the idea that there was no sole model for the cult image of Antinous. The Egyptianizing type is visually obvious in iconography as influenced or made in Egypt; the Antinous at Hadrian's Villa at Tivoli is an example of this particular style. While all three types have iconographic differences, many of the depictions of Antinous are influenced by, or use iconography from youthful gods, such as Dionysus. Vout argues that without those iconographical borrowings, the cult image of Antinous would consist of just another pretty boy in Imperial Rome.
|
[
"Dionysus",
"Mondragone",
"Hadrian",
"Antinous",
"Hadrian's Villa",
"Tivoli"
] |
|
13649_NT
|
Antinous Mondragone
|
In the context of this artwork, explain the Style of the Description.
|
Most art of Antinous can be categorized into one of the three distinct styles; the Main type, the Egyptianizing type, or the Mondragone type. The Main type includes two variants; variant A and variant B, both of which can be differentiated by looking at the arrangement of the locks of hair on the forehead. Art historian Caroline Vout argues that the use of the 'lock-scheme' method, in regards to the Main type, is not a sure way to conclude whether or not a piece should be disqualified from a certain type, but it would be a large contributing factor. The Egyptianizing type, much like the Mondragone type, helps get across the idea that there was no sole model for the cult image of Antinous. The Egyptianizing type is visually obvious in iconography as influenced or made in Egypt; the Antinous at Hadrian's Villa at Tivoli is an example of this particular style. While all three types have iconographic differences, many of the depictions of Antinous are influenced by, or use iconography from youthful gods, such as Dionysus. Vout argues that without those iconographical borrowings, the cult image of Antinous would consist of just another pretty boy in Imperial Rome.
|
[
"Dionysus",
"Mondragone",
"Hadrian",
"Antinous",
"Hadrian's Villa",
"Tivoli"
] |
|
13650_T
|
Antinous Mondragone
|
Explore the Scholarly interpretation of this artwork, Antinous Mondragone.
|
The 18th-century art historian, Johann Winckelmann made it better known by praising it in his History of Ancient Art, calling it "the glory and crown of art in this age as well as in others" and "so immaculate that it appears to have come fresh out of the hands of the artist". This was since, though Roman in date, it echoed the 5th century BC Greek style which Winckelmann preferred over Roman art.
|
[
"Johann Winckelmann"
] |
|
13650_NT
|
Antinous Mondragone
|
Explore the Scholarly interpretation of this artwork.
|
The 18th-century art historian, Johann Winckelmann made it better known by praising it in his History of Ancient Art, calling it "the glory and crown of art in this age as well as in others" and "so immaculate that it appears to have come fresh out of the hands of the artist". This was since, though Roman in date, it echoed the 5th century BC Greek style which Winckelmann preferred over Roman art.
|
[
"Johann Winckelmann"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.