ID
stringlengths 6
8
| title
stringlengths 3
136
| question
stringlengths 33
235
| answer
stringlengths 51
15.3k
| image_url
stringlengths 57
817
| entities
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
15151_T | Miss Nightingale at Scutari, 1854 | Focus on Miss Nightingale at Scutari, 1854 and discuss the abstract. | Miss Nightingale at Scutari, 1854, also known as The Lady with the Lamp, is an 1891 painting by Henrietta Rae. It depicts Florence Nightingale at Scutari Hospital during the Crimean War.
The painting is a romanticised three-quarter-length portrait of Nightingale, depicted as a young woman swathed in a white shawl, carrying an oil lamp as she looks down on a wounded soldier, wearing his redcoat draped over his shoulders with its arms around his neck. Other wounded soldiers lie in the background, below military flags.
The painting was commissioned by the publishers Cassell & Co for reproduction as a chromolithograph with their "Yule Tide" Christmas annual in 1891, entitled "The Lady with the Lamp".
The location of the original oil painting is not known. | [
"Christmas annual",
"oil lamp",
"Henrietta Rae",
"Scutari Hospital",
"Florence Nightingale",
"redcoat",
"Crimean War",
"Cassell & Co",
"chromolithograph"
]
|
|
15151_NT | Miss Nightingale at Scutari, 1854 | Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract. | Miss Nightingale at Scutari, 1854, also known as The Lady with the Lamp, is an 1891 painting by Henrietta Rae. It depicts Florence Nightingale at Scutari Hospital during the Crimean War.
The painting is a romanticised three-quarter-length portrait of Nightingale, depicted as a young woman swathed in a white shawl, carrying an oil lamp as she looks down on a wounded soldier, wearing his redcoat draped over his shoulders with its arms around his neck. Other wounded soldiers lie in the background, below military flags.
The painting was commissioned by the publishers Cassell & Co for reproduction as a chromolithograph with their "Yule Tide" Christmas annual in 1891, entitled "The Lady with the Lamp".
The location of the original oil painting is not known. | [
"Christmas annual",
"oil lamp",
"Henrietta Rae",
"Scutari Hospital",
"Florence Nightingale",
"redcoat",
"Crimean War",
"Cassell & Co",
"chromolithograph"
]
|
|
15152_T | Statue of Zebulon Baird Vance | How does Statue of Zebulon Baird Vance elucidate its abstract? | Zebulon Baird Vance is a bronze sculpture commemorating the Confederate colonel and governor of the same name by Gutzon Borglum, installed in the United States Capitol as part of the National Statuary Hall Collection. The statue was donated to the collection by the state of North Carolina, and was accepted by the Senate on 22 June 1916. | [
"Gutzon Borglum",
"Confederate colonel and governor of the same name",
"National Statuary Hall Collection",
"bronze sculpture",
"National Statuary Hall",
"Zebulon Baird Vance",
"Vance",
"United States Capitol",
"North Carolina"
]
|
|
15152_NT | Statue of Zebulon Baird Vance | How does this artwork elucidate its abstract? | Zebulon Baird Vance is a bronze sculpture commemorating the Confederate colonel and governor of the same name by Gutzon Borglum, installed in the United States Capitol as part of the National Statuary Hall Collection. The statue was donated to the collection by the state of North Carolina, and was accepted by the Senate on 22 June 1916. | [
"Gutzon Borglum",
"Confederate colonel and governor of the same name",
"National Statuary Hall Collection",
"bronze sculpture",
"National Statuary Hall",
"Zebulon Baird Vance",
"Vance",
"United States Capitol",
"North Carolina"
]
|
|
15153_T | The Chinese Convert | Focus on The Chinese Convert and analyze the abstract. | The Chinese Convert is a 1687 painting by Godfrey Kneller depicting the Chinese Catholic convert Michael Alphonsius Shen Fu-Tsung.
The painting was ordered by King James II when he met Shen Fu-Tsung during his visit to England in 1685. The king was so delighted by this visit that he commissioned the portrait, and had it hung in his bedroom. The portrait remains in the Royal Collection, and usually still hangs at Windsor Castle. Shen also visited Oxford, where he helped catalogue the Bodleian Library's collection of Chinese books.Shen left China in 1681 with Philippe Couplet SJ for a tour of Europe, where Couplet planned to promote the Jesuit's China Mission and plead the Jesuit cause before Pope Innocent XI. Couplet was to be accompanied by five Chinese candidates for the priesthood, including Wu Li (Simon de Cunha) and Shen Fuzhong (Michael Shen). In the end only Michael Shen and another young candidate left with Couplet, and after a delay in Batavia, only Michael Shen went with Couplet on that tour of Europe.
Being a young Jesuit candidate, Shen's meeting with the English king was only possible during a brief period in post-Reformation English history, when the king was a Roman Catholic and Jesuits were received at court. A year later, in 1688, James II was deposed and replaced by the Protestant William III and Mary II, and so that encounter between king, Jesuit, and artist — James II, Michael Shen Fuzong, and Sir Godfrey Kneller — could not otherwise have happened. But the result of that encounter was an important Western portrait of a Chinese subject, and hence also its name, "The Chinese Convert". | [
"Wu Li",
"Michael Alphonsius Shen Fu-Tsung",
"Godfrey Kneller",
"Bodleian Library",
"Philippe Couplet",
"James II",
"Pope Innocent XI",
"Royal Collection",
"Mary II",
"Windsor Castle",
"Batavia",
"England",
"William III"
]
|
|
15153_NT | The Chinese Convert | Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract. | The Chinese Convert is a 1687 painting by Godfrey Kneller depicting the Chinese Catholic convert Michael Alphonsius Shen Fu-Tsung.
The painting was ordered by King James II when he met Shen Fu-Tsung during his visit to England in 1685. The king was so delighted by this visit that he commissioned the portrait, and had it hung in his bedroom. The portrait remains in the Royal Collection, and usually still hangs at Windsor Castle. Shen also visited Oxford, where he helped catalogue the Bodleian Library's collection of Chinese books.Shen left China in 1681 with Philippe Couplet SJ for a tour of Europe, where Couplet planned to promote the Jesuit's China Mission and plead the Jesuit cause before Pope Innocent XI. Couplet was to be accompanied by five Chinese candidates for the priesthood, including Wu Li (Simon de Cunha) and Shen Fuzhong (Michael Shen). In the end only Michael Shen and another young candidate left with Couplet, and after a delay in Batavia, only Michael Shen went with Couplet on that tour of Europe.
Being a young Jesuit candidate, Shen's meeting with the English king was only possible during a brief period in post-Reformation English history, when the king was a Roman Catholic and Jesuits were received at court. A year later, in 1688, James II was deposed and replaced by the Protestant William III and Mary II, and so that encounter between king, Jesuit, and artist — James II, Michael Shen Fuzong, and Sir Godfrey Kneller — could not otherwise have happened. But the result of that encounter was an important Western portrait of a Chinese subject, and hence also its name, "The Chinese Convert". | [
"Wu Li",
"Michael Alphonsius Shen Fu-Tsung",
"Godfrey Kneller",
"Bodleian Library",
"Philippe Couplet",
"James II",
"Pope Innocent XI",
"Royal Collection",
"Mary II",
"Windsor Castle",
"Batavia",
"England",
"William III"
]
|
|
15154_T | The Closing Era | In The Closing Era, how is the Base poem discussed? | The poem at the base reads:The mountain eagle from his snow-locked peaks
For the wild hunter and the bison seeks,
In the chang'd world below; and find aloneTheir graven semblance, in the eternal stone. | []
|
|
15154_NT | The Closing Era | In this artwork, how is the Base poem discussed? | The poem at the base reads:The mountain eagle from his snow-locked peaks
For the wild hunter and the bison seeks,
In the chang'd world below; and find aloneTheir graven semblance, in the eternal stone. | []
|
|
15155_T | The Closing Era | Focus on The Closing Era and explore the Vandalism. | In August, 2015, the bow being held by the Native American was stolen but later recovered. According to police spokeswoman Christine Downs, the bow was "discovered tossed over the District 2 police station fence" on September 2, 2015, which is approximate five miles away. | []
|
|
15155_NT | The Closing Era | Focus on this artwork and explore the Vandalism. | In August, 2015, the bow being held by the Native American was stolen but later recovered. According to police spokeswoman Christine Downs, the bow was "discovered tossed over the District 2 police station fence" on September 2, 2015, which is approximate five miles away. | []
|
|
15156_T | The Scapegoat (painting) | Focus on The Scapegoat (painting) and explain the abstract. | The Scapegoat (1854–1856) is a painting by William Holman Hunt which depicts the "scapegoat" described in the Book of Leviticus. On the Day of Atonement, a goat would have its horns wrapped with a red cloth – representing the sins of the community – and be driven off.
Hunt started painting on the shore of the Dead Sea, and continued it in his studio in London. The work exists in two versions, a small version in brighter colours with a dark-haired goat and a rainbow, in Manchester Art Gallery, and a larger version in more muted tones with a light-haired goat in the Lady Lever Art Gallery in Port Sunlight. Both were created over the same period, with the smaller Manchester version being described as "preliminary" to the larger Lady Lever version, which was the one exhibited. | [
"Manchester Art Gallery",
"William Holman Hunt",
"Leviticus",
"Port Sunlight",
"scapegoat",
"Manchester",
"Dead Sea",
"Lady Lever Art Gallery",
"Day of Atonement",
"Book of Leviticus",
"Scapegoat"
]
|
|
15156_NT | The Scapegoat (painting) | Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract. | The Scapegoat (1854–1856) is a painting by William Holman Hunt which depicts the "scapegoat" described in the Book of Leviticus. On the Day of Atonement, a goat would have its horns wrapped with a red cloth – representing the sins of the community – and be driven off.
Hunt started painting on the shore of the Dead Sea, and continued it in his studio in London. The work exists in two versions, a small version in brighter colours with a dark-haired goat and a rainbow, in Manchester Art Gallery, and a larger version in more muted tones with a light-haired goat in the Lady Lever Art Gallery in Port Sunlight. Both were created over the same period, with the smaller Manchester version being described as "preliminary" to the larger Lady Lever version, which was the one exhibited. | [
"Manchester Art Gallery",
"William Holman Hunt",
"Leviticus",
"Port Sunlight",
"scapegoat",
"Manchester",
"Dead Sea",
"Lady Lever Art Gallery",
"Day of Atonement",
"Book of Leviticus",
"Scapegoat"
]
|
|
15157_T | The Scapegoat (painting) | Explore the Critical reception of this artwork, The Scapegoat (painting). | The reaction to the painting was not as Hunt expected. In his autobiography Pre-Raphaelitism and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, Hunt relates the first reaction to the painting by art dealer Ernest Gambart:Gambart, the picture-dealer, was ever shrewd and entertaining. He came in his turn to my studio, and I led him to The Scapegoat. "What do you call that?""The Scapegoat.""Yes; but what is it doing?""You will understand by the title, Le bouc expiatoire.""But why expiatoire?" he asked."Well, there is a book called the Bible, which gives an account of the animal. You will remember.""No," he replied, "I never heard of it.""Ah, I forgot, the book is not known in France, but English people read it more or less," I said, "and they would all understand the story of the beast being driven into the wilderness.""You are mistaken. No one would know anything about it, and if I bought the picture it would be left on my hands. Now, we will see," replied the dealer. "My wife is an English lady, there is a friend of hers, an English girl, in the carriage with her, we will ask them up, you shall tell them the title; we will see. Do not say more."The ladies were conducted into the room. "Oh how pretty! what is it?" they asked."It is The Scapegoat." I said.There was a pause. "Oh yes," they commented to one another, "it is a peculiar goat, you can see by the ears, they droop so."The dealer then, nodding with a smile towards me, said to them, "It is in the wilderness."The ladies: "Is that the wilderness now? Are you intending to introduce any others of the flock?" And so the dealer was proved to be right, and I had over-counted on the picture's intelligibility.
Dante Gabriel Rossetti, in a letter to William Allingham in 1856, called the painting "a grand thing, but not for the public". Ford Madox Brown wrote in his diary: "Hunt's Scapegoat requires to be seen to be believed in. Only then can it be understood how, by the might of genius, out of an old goat, and some saline encrustations, can be made one of the most tragic and impressive works in the annals of art." Ernest Gambart, as related by Hunt, was less enthusiastic, and was later to remark: "I wanted a nice religious picture and he painted me a great goat." The Art Journal in 1860, at the time of the exhibition of Hunt's later work The Finding of the Saviour in the Temple, was to characterise the painting as "having disappointed even his warmest admirers".At the time of the exhibition of The Scapegoat itself, in 1856, The Art Journal questioned Hunt's eye for colour in the painting, casting doubt that the mountains of Edom, seen in the background, really were in actual appearance as painted – which Matthew Dennison, writing in The Spectator in 2008 described the Manchester version as "Day-Glo striations of lilac, crimson and egg-yolk yellow". Dennison suggests the possibility that Hunt was painting the scene from memory, when he was finishing the painting in London after he had returned from his trip to the Dead Sea, and mis-remembered it. Evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton, who saw the painting as a boy and was deeply impressed by the "sci-fi book cover" intensity of it, wrote after visiting Israel that "now on the shores of the Dead Sea I knew that I saw exactly the background I had remembered...if anything more exceptional, more other-worldly, than the painting had made them." Hunt's own description of the landscape that he painted is that "never was so extraordinary a scene of beautifully arranged horrible wilderness. It is black, full of asphalte scum and in the hand slimy, and smarting as a sting – No one can stand and say that it is not accursed of God." Art critic Peter Fuller, in 1989, described the landscape of the painting as "a terrible image [...] of the world as a god-forsaken wasteland, a heap of broken images where the sun beats". | [
"Edom",
"William Allingham",
"Dante Gabriel Rossetti",
"The Art Journal",
"Ford Madox Brown",
"Manchester",
"Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood",
"Dead Sea",
"The Spectator",
"Ernest Gambart",
"W. D. Hamilton",
"Scapegoat",
"Peter Fuller",
"The Finding of the Saviour in the Temple"
]
|
|
15157_NT | The Scapegoat (painting) | Explore the Critical reception of this artwork. | The reaction to the painting was not as Hunt expected. In his autobiography Pre-Raphaelitism and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, Hunt relates the first reaction to the painting by art dealer Ernest Gambart:Gambart, the picture-dealer, was ever shrewd and entertaining. He came in his turn to my studio, and I led him to The Scapegoat. "What do you call that?""The Scapegoat.""Yes; but what is it doing?""You will understand by the title, Le bouc expiatoire.""But why expiatoire?" he asked."Well, there is a book called the Bible, which gives an account of the animal. You will remember.""No," he replied, "I never heard of it.""Ah, I forgot, the book is not known in France, but English people read it more or less," I said, "and they would all understand the story of the beast being driven into the wilderness.""You are mistaken. No one would know anything about it, and if I bought the picture it would be left on my hands. Now, we will see," replied the dealer. "My wife is an English lady, there is a friend of hers, an English girl, in the carriage with her, we will ask them up, you shall tell them the title; we will see. Do not say more."The ladies were conducted into the room. "Oh how pretty! what is it?" they asked."It is The Scapegoat." I said.There was a pause. "Oh yes," they commented to one another, "it is a peculiar goat, you can see by the ears, they droop so."The dealer then, nodding with a smile towards me, said to them, "It is in the wilderness."The ladies: "Is that the wilderness now? Are you intending to introduce any others of the flock?" And so the dealer was proved to be right, and I had over-counted on the picture's intelligibility.
Dante Gabriel Rossetti, in a letter to William Allingham in 1856, called the painting "a grand thing, but not for the public". Ford Madox Brown wrote in his diary: "Hunt's Scapegoat requires to be seen to be believed in. Only then can it be understood how, by the might of genius, out of an old goat, and some saline encrustations, can be made one of the most tragic and impressive works in the annals of art." Ernest Gambart, as related by Hunt, was less enthusiastic, and was later to remark: "I wanted a nice religious picture and he painted me a great goat." The Art Journal in 1860, at the time of the exhibition of Hunt's later work The Finding of the Saviour in the Temple, was to characterise the painting as "having disappointed even his warmest admirers".At the time of the exhibition of The Scapegoat itself, in 1856, The Art Journal questioned Hunt's eye for colour in the painting, casting doubt that the mountains of Edom, seen in the background, really were in actual appearance as painted – which Matthew Dennison, writing in The Spectator in 2008 described the Manchester version as "Day-Glo striations of lilac, crimson and egg-yolk yellow". Dennison suggests the possibility that Hunt was painting the scene from memory, when he was finishing the painting in London after he had returned from his trip to the Dead Sea, and mis-remembered it. Evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton, who saw the painting as a boy and was deeply impressed by the "sci-fi book cover" intensity of it, wrote after visiting Israel that "now on the shores of the Dead Sea I knew that I saw exactly the background I had remembered...if anything more exceptional, more other-worldly, than the painting had made them." Hunt's own description of the landscape that he painted is that "never was so extraordinary a scene of beautifully arranged horrible wilderness. It is black, full of asphalte scum and in the hand slimy, and smarting as a sting – No one can stand and say that it is not accursed of God." Art critic Peter Fuller, in 1989, described the landscape of the painting as "a terrible image [...] of the world as a god-forsaken wasteland, a heap of broken images where the sun beats". | [
"Edom",
"William Allingham",
"Dante Gabriel Rossetti",
"The Art Journal",
"Ford Madox Brown",
"Manchester",
"Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood",
"Dead Sea",
"The Spectator",
"Ernest Gambart",
"W. D. Hamilton",
"Scapegoat",
"Peter Fuller",
"The Finding of the Saviour in the Temple"
]
|
|
15158_T | Water Lilies (1919) | Focus on Water Lilies (1919) and discuss the abstract. | The Water Lilies is a 1919 painting by impressionist Claude Monet, one of his Water Lilies series. The painting, the left hand panel of a large pair, depicts a scene in Monet's French pond showing light reflecting off the water with water lilies on the surface. It is on display in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.One of Monet's larger paintings, it shows the beauty of the sunset reflecting off the water. In 1919, Claude Monet was an elderly man who had already had been painting for almost 70 years, and his Water Lilies series came during a time when he was mainly painting water lilies in his pond, the pond's bridge, and his garden. | [
"impressionist",
"New York",
"left",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art",
"Claude Monet",
"Water Lilies",
"his pond, the pond's bridge, and his garden"
]
|
|
15158_NT | Water Lilies (1919) | Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract. | The Water Lilies is a 1919 painting by impressionist Claude Monet, one of his Water Lilies series. The painting, the left hand panel of a large pair, depicts a scene in Monet's French pond showing light reflecting off the water with water lilies on the surface. It is on display in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.One of Monet's larger paintings, it shows the beauty of the sunset reflecting off the water. In 1919, Claude Monet was an elderly man who had already had been painting for almost 70 years, and his Water Lilies series came during a time when he was mainly painting water lilies in his pond, the pond's bridge, and his garden. | [
"impressionist",
"New York",
"left",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art",
"Claude Monet",
"Water Lilies",
"his pond, the pond's bridge, and his garden"
]
|
|
15159_T | St John the Baptist Wearing the Red Tabard of the Order of St John | How does St John the Baptist Wearing the Red Tabard of the Order of St John elucidate its abstract? | St John the Baptist Wearing the Red Tabard of the Order of St John is an oil on canvas painting by Italian painter Mattia Preti, from 1671. The painting has the dimensions of 98 x 78 centimeters. It is in the collection of MUŻA in Valletta, Malta. | [
"Valletta",
"MUŻA",
"Malta",
"Tabard",
"Mattia Preti"
]
|
|
15159_NT | St John the Baptist Wearing the Red Tabard of the Order of St John | How does this artwork elucidate its abstract? | St John the Baptist Wearing the Red Tabard of the Order of St John is an oil on canvas painting by Italian painter Mattia Preti, from 1671. The painting has the dimensions of 98 x 78 centimeters. It is in the collection of MUŻA in Valletta, Malta. | [
"Valletta",
"MUŻA",
"Malta",
"Tabard",
"Mattia Preti"
]
|
|
15160_T | St John the Baptist Wearing the Red Tabard of the Order of St John | Focus on St John the Baptist Wearing the Red Tabard of the Order of St John and analyze the Analysis. | The painting is believed to be a self-portrait of the artist, Mattia Preti, wearing the red tabard of the Order of Saint John. | [
"Order of Saint John",
"self-portrait",
"tabard",
"Mattia Preti"
]
|
|
15160_NT | St John the Baptist Wearing the Red Tabard of the Order of St John | Focus on this artwork and analyze the Analysis. | The painting is believed to be a self-portrait of the artist, Mattia Preti, wearing the red tabard of the Order of Saint John. | [
"Order of Saint John",
"self-portrait",
"tabard",
"Mattia Preti"
]
|
|
15161_T | The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus | In The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus, how is the abstract discussed? | The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus is a painting by Joseph Wright of Derby originally completed in 1771 then reworked in 1795. The full title of the painting is The Alchymist, in Search of the Philosopher's Stone, Discovers Phosphorus, and prays for the successful Conclusion of his operation, as was the custom of the Ancient Chymical Astrologers. It has been suggested that The Alchymist refers to the discovery of phosphorus by the Hamburg alchemist Hennig Brand in 1669. This story was often printed in popular chemical books in Wright's lifetime, and was widely known. | [
"phosphorus",
"Phosphorus",
"alchemist",
"Derby",
"Joseph Wright of Derby",
"Hamburg",
"Hennig Brand"
]
|
|
15161_NT | The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus | In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed? | The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus is a painting by Joseph Wright of Derby originally completed in 1771 then reworked in 1795. The full title of the painting is The Alchymist, in Search of the Philosopher's Stone, Discovers Phosphorus, and prays for the successful Conclusion of his operation, as was the custom of the Ancient Chymical Astrologers. It has been suggested that The Alchymist refers to the discovery of phosphorus by the Hamburg alchemist Hennig Brand in 1669. This story was often printed in popular chemical books in Wright's lifetime, and was widely known. | [
"phosphorus",
"Phosphorus",
"alchemist",
"Derby",
"Joseph Wright of Derby",
"Hamburg",
"Hennig Brand"
]
|
|
15162_T | The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus | Focus on The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus and explore the Description. | The picture shows the alchemist trying to produce the elusive Philosopher's stone, which could turn ordinary metal into gold, but instead, to his amazement, he discovers phosphorus. However, Wright does not picture the alchemist in a 17th-century background, but he romanticises the room by imagining medieval gothic arches and high, pointed windows as if he is in a church. He also gave a very favourable impression of the actual process, which involves the reduction by boiling of urine. A 1730 description of the manufacture of phosphorus described the need for 50 or 60 pails of urine that was both putrid and "bred worms".
Wright also gives religious connotations to the painting. The alchemist kneels in front of a shining vessel, stretching out his hands in a similar gesture to that used by El Greco when painting St Francis receiving the Stigmata or St Jerome in Prayer. Benedict Nicolson compares his posture to that of one of Christ's disciples receiving communion. He believes that the layout of the painting may have been taken from Thomas Wijck's painting (left) of an alchemist, which also contains similar vaulting, a confusion of objects and a similar assistant who is singled out by the light. This painting from the previous century was on display in London during Wright's lifetime. However, it is clear from a sketch by Wright's companion, Peter Perez Burdett, that he had a strong influence on the design. His sketch of 4 February 1771 shows the vaulting and the layout of the painting, with the glass container as its focus. It is Burdett who says where to place the figure in the painting, and Burdett had already referred Wright to Matthew Turner so that Wright might fully understand the underlying science in the painting. | [
"El Greco",
"Benedict Nicolson",
"phosphorus",
"Peter Perez Burdett",
"Matthew Turner",
"left",
"alchemist",
"Philosopher's stone",
"Thomas Wijck"
]
|
|
15162_NT | The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus | Focus on this artwork and explore the Description. | The picture shows the alchemist trying to produce the elusive Philosopher's stone, which could turn ordinary metal into gold, but instead, to his amazement, he discovers phosphorus. However, Wright does not picture the alchemist in a 17th-century background, but he romanticises the room by imagining medieval gothic arches and high, pointed windows as if he is in a church. He also gave a very favourable impression of the actual process, which involves the reduction by boiling of urine. A 1730 description of the manufacture of phosphorus described the need for 50 or 60 pails of urine that was both putrid and "bred worms".
Wright also gives religious connotations to the painting. The alchemist kneels in front of a shining vessel, stretching out his hands in a similar gesture to that used by El Greco when painting St Francis receiving the Stigmata or St Jerome in Prayer. Benedict Nicolson compares his posture to that of one of Christ's disciples receiving communion. He believes that the layout of the painting may have been taken from Thomas Wijck's painting (left) of an alchemist, which also contains similar vaulting, a confusion of objects and a similar assistant who is singled out by the light. This painting from the previous century was on display in London during Wright's lifetime. However, it is clear from a sketch by Wright's companion, Peter Perez Burdett, that he had a strong influence on the design. His sketch of 4 February 1771 shows the vaulting and the layout of the painting, with the glass container as its focus. It is Burdett who says where to place the figure in the painting, and Burdett had already referred Wright to Matthew Turner so that Wright might fully understand the underlying science in the painting. | [
"El Greco",
"Benedict Nicolson",
"phosphorus",
"Peter Perez Burdett",
"Matthew Turner",
"left",
"alchemist",
"Philosopher's stone",
"Thomas Wijck"
]
|
|
15163_T | The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus | Focus on The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus and explain the History. | Since its exhibition in 1771, the picture has provoked many contradictory interpretations. Its mystery disturbed 18th-century viewers, and although Wright was an internationally recognised artist, the painting was not sold when he first exhibited it. The picture travelled with Wright to Italy in 1773–1775, came back to England, was reworked in 1795, but was only sold four years after his death, when his possessions were auctioned at Christie's. | [
"Christie's"
]
|
|
15163_NT | The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus | Focus on this artwork and explain the History. | Since its exhibition in 1771, the picture has provoked many contradictory interpretations. Its mystery disturbed 18th-century viewers, and although Wright was an internationally recognised artist, the painting was not sold when he first exhibited it. The picture travelled with Wright to Italy in 1773–1775, came back to England, was reworked in 1795, but was only sold four years after his death, when his possessions were auctioned at Christie's. | [
"Christie's"
]
|
|
15164_T | Cascade Charley | Explore the abstract of this artwork, Cascade Charley. | Cascade Charley is an outdoor 1991 fountain and sculpture by Alice Wingwall, installed in Cascade Courtyard, on the University of Oregon campus in Eugene, Oregon, United States. It is made of concrete, tile, and red marble. | [
"Eugene, Oregon",
"University of Oregon",
"Alice Wingwall"
]
|
|
15164_NT | Cascade Charley | Explore the abstract of this artwork. | Cascade Charley is an outdoor 1991 fountain and sculpture by Alice Wingwall, installed in Cascade Courtyard, on the University of Oregon campus in Eugene, Oregon, United States. It is made of concrete, tile, and red marble. | [
"Eugene, Oregon",
"University of Oregon",
"Alice Wingwall"
]
|
|
15165_T | Hatfield Fountain | Focus on Hatfield Fountain and discuss the abstract. | Hatfield Fountain, formally the Antoinette and Mark O. Hatfield Fountain and nicknamed "Chicken Fountain", is an outdoor 1989 fountain and sculpture by Tom Hardy, Lawrence Halprin, and Scott Stickney, installed at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon, United States. | [
"Lawrence Halprin",
"Willamette University",
"Tom Hardy",
"Salem, Oregon"
]
|
|
15165_NT | Hatfield Fountain | Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract. | Hatfield Fountain, formally the Antoinette and Mark O. Hatfield Fountain and nicknamed "Chicken Fountain", is an outdoor 1989 fountain and sculpture by Tom Hardy, Lawrence Halprin, and Scott Stickney, installed at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon, United States. | [
"Lawrence Halprin",
"Willamette University",
"Tom Hardy",
"Salem, Oregon"
]
|
|
15166_T | Hatfield Fountain | How does Hatfield Fountain elucidate its History? | Hatfield Fountain was designed by Tom Hardy, Lawrence Halprin, and Scott Stickney. It is named after Antoinette and Mark Hatfield, a former Oregon senator and Willamette University alumnus, and was dedicated on October 13, 1989. According to Willamette University, the fountain serves as a popular reference point for campus gatherings.The Hatfield Fountain is administered by Willamette University. In July 1993, the fountain was surveyed and deemed as "well maintained" by the Smithsonian Institution's "Save Outdoor Sculpture!" program. | [
"Smithsonian Institution",
"Save Outdoor Sculpture!",
"Lawrence Halprin",
"Mark Hatfield",
"Willamette University",
"Tom Hardy"
]
|
|
15166_NT | Hatfield Fountain | How does this artwork elucidate its History? | Hatfield Fountain was designed by Tom Hardy, Lawrence Halprin, and Scott Stickney. It is named after Antoinette and Mark Hatfield, a former Oregon senator and Willamette University alumnus, and was dedicated on October 13, 1989. According to Willamette University, the fountain serves as a popular reference point for campus gatherings.The Hatfield Fountain is administered by Willamette University. In July 1993, the fountain was surveyed and deemed as "well maintained" by the Smithsonian Institution's "Save Outdoor Sculpture!" program. | [
"Smithsonian Institution",
"Save Outdoor Sculpture!",
"Lawrence Halprin",
"Mark Hatfield",
"Willamette University",
"Tom Hardy"
]
|
|
15167_T | Hatfield Fountain | Focus on Hatfield Fountain and analyze the Description. | The work features two birds set on a fountain consisting of large stones arranged in two stacks, all set in a round basin. The concrete-and-stone fountain measures approximately 13 feet (4.0 m) tall and has a diameter of 23 feet (7.0 m). One bird sits atop each stack; the bird on the shorter stack is set in a bird nest of rods and carrying a twig in its mouth, and the bird on the taller stack has its wings spread. The birds are made of steel rods and cut bronze or steel sheet; one measures approximately 3 feet (0.91 m) x 2 feet (0.61 m) x 3 feet (0.91 m), and another measures approximately 5 feet (1.5 m) x 2 feet (0.61 m) x 3 feet (0.91 m). Water flows from one of the stacks into the basin. A nearby plaque reads: THE ANTOINETTE AND MARK O. HATFIELD / FOUNTAIN / GENEROUS GIFT / OF / CHARLES E. AND DOROTHY L. COOK / SCULPTURE AND DESIGN BY / TOM HARDY, LAWRENCE HALPRIN / AND SCOTT STICKNEY / DEDICATED OCTOBER 13, 1989. | [
"bird nest"
]
|
|
15167_NT | Hatfield Fountain | Focus on this artwork and analyze the Description. | The work features two birds set on a fountain consisting of large stones arranged in two stacks, all set in a round basin. The concrete-and-stone fountain measures approximately 13 feet (4.0 m) tall and has a diameter of 23 feet (7.0 m). One bird sits atop each stack; the bird on the shorter stack is set in a bird nest of rods and carrying a twig in its mouth, and the bird on the taller stack has its wings spread. The birds are made of steel rods and cut bronze or steel sheet; one measures approximately 3 feet (0.91 m) x 2 feet (0.61 m) x 3 feet (0.91 m), and another measures approximately 5 feet (1.5 m) x 2 feet (0.61 m) x 3 feet (0.91 m). Water flows from one of the stacks into the basin. A nearby plaque reads: THE ANTOINETTE AND MARK O. HATFIELD / FOUNTAIN / GENEROUS GIFT / OF / CHARLES E. AND DOROTHY L. COOK / SCULPTURE AND DESIGN BY / TOM HARDY, LAWRENCE HALPRIN / AND SCOTT STICKNEY / DEDICATED OCTOBER 13, 1989. | [
"bird nest"
]
|
|
15168_T | Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall) | In Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall), how is the Decapitation discussed? | On 3 July 2002, theatre producer Paul Kelleher decapitated the statue while it was on display at Guildhall Art Gallery. Having unsuccessfully taken a swing at the statue with a Slazenger V600 cricket bat concealed in his trousers, Kelleher picked up a metal pole from a nearby rope cordon and used it to decapitate the £150,000 statue. After the vandalism he waited to be arrested by the police who arrived minutes later. He joked on capture: "I think it looks better like that."Following the loss of its head, the statue was removed from display. Although it was estimated that the work could be repaired for about £10,000, statue experts worried that it would never be the same.At his first trial, Kelleher said in his defence that the attack involved his "artistic expression and my right to interact with this broken world". The jury, despite nearly four hours of deliberation and a direction from the judge that it could decide by majority, failed to agree on whether or not he had "lawful excuse". He was retried in January 2003, found guilty of criminal damage and sentenced to three months in jail.
On 21 February 2007, a new statue of Thatcher was commissioned in 2003 from sculptor Antony Dufort and this time in tougher silicon bronze. It was erected on the reserved plinth in the Members' Lobby. The rule against living subjects had been relaxed by this stage and Thatcher unveiled the statue. By then, the marble statue had been repaired, but it remains in Guildhall. After several years in the Guildhall Art Gallery, the statue was moved to a corridor location elsewhere in the Guildhall building. | [
"metal pole",
"cricket bat",
"bronze",
"criminal damage",
"Decapitation",
"Slazenger",
"decapitated",
"Members' Lobby",
"new statue of Thatcher"
]
|
|
15168_NT | Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall) | In this artwork, how is the Decapitation discussed? | On 3 July 2002, theatre producer Paul Kelleher decapitated the statue while it was on display at Guildhall Art Gallery. Having unsuccessfully taken a swing at the statue with a Slazenger V600 cricket bat concealed in his trousers, Kelleher picked up a metal pole from a nearby rope cordon and used it to decapitate the £150,000 statue. After the vandalism he waited to be arrested by the police who arrived minutes later. He joked on capture: "I think it looks better like that."Following the loss of its head, the statue was removed from display. Although it was estimated that the work could be repaired for about £10,000, statue experts worried that it would never be the same.At his first trial, Kelleher said in his defence that the attack involved his "artistic expression and my right to interact with this broken world". The jury, despite nearly four hours of deliberation and a direction from the judge that it could decide by majority, failed to agree on whether or not he had "lawful excuse". He was retried in January 2003, found guilty of criminal damage and sentenced to three months in jail.
On 21 February 2007, a new statue of Thatcher was commissioned in 2003 from sculptor Antony Dufort and this time in tougher silicon bronze. It was erected on the reserved plinth in the Members' Lobby. The rule against living subjects had been relaxed by this stage and Thatcher unveiled the statue. By then, the marble statue had been repaired, but it remains in Guildhall. After several years in the Guildhall Art Gallery, the statue was moved to a corridor location elsewhere in the Guildhall building. | [
"metal pole",
"cricket bat",
"bronze",
"criminal damage",
"Decapitation",
"Slazenger",
"decapitated",
"Members' Lobby",
"new statue of Thatcher"
]
|
|
15169_T | Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall) | Focus on Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall) and explore the In popular culture. | "I Did It for Alfie", a song on the 2004 album Un by Chumbawamba that was directly inspired by the incident | [
"Un",
"Chumbawamba"
]
|
|
15169_NT | Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall) | Focus on this artwork and explore the In popular culture. | "I Did It for Alfie", a song on the 2004 album Un by Chumbawamba that was directly inspired by the incident | [
"Un",
"Chumbawamba"
]
|
|
15170_T | Crucifixion (Tintoretto) | Focus on Crucifixion (Tintoretto) and explain the abstract. | The Crucifixion by Tintoretto is a large painting in oil on canvas, installed in the Sala dell'Albergo of the Scuola Grande di San Rocco, Venice. It is signed and dated 1565. This painting is one of the most dramatic versions of the Crucifixion in the history of Christian religious art. | [
"canvas",
"oil",
"Tintoretto",
"Scuola Grande di San Rocco",
"Venice"
]
|
|
15170_NT | Crucifixion (Tintoretto) | Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract. | The Crucifixion by Tintoretto is a large painting in oil on canvas, installed in the Sala dell'Albergo of the Scuola Grande di San Rocco, Venice. It is signed and dated 1565. This painting is one of the most dramatic versions of the Crucifixion in the history of Christian religious art. | [
"canvas",
"oil",
"Tintoretto",
"Scuola Grande di San Rocco",
"Venice"
]
|
|
15171_T | Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) | Explore the abstract of this artwork, Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco). | Ashurbanipal, also known as the Ashurbanipal Monument or the Statue of Ashurbanipal, is a bronze sculpture by Fred Parhad, an artist of Assyrian descent. It is located in the Civic Center of San Francisco, California, in the United States. The 15-foot (4.6 m) statue depicting the Assyrian king of the same name was commissioned by the Assyrian Foundation for the Arts and presented to the City of San Francisco in 1988 as a gift from the Assyrian people. The sculpture reportedly cost $100,000 and was the first "sizable" bronze statue of Ashurbanipal. It is administered by the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Arts Commission.
Parhad's work was met with some criticism by local Assyrians, who argued it was inaccurate to portray Ashurbanipal holding a clay tablet and a lion, or wearing a skirt. The critics thought the statue looked more like the Sumerian king Gilgamesh; Maureen Gallery Kovacs, a Yale Ph.D. who has translated The Epic of Gilgamesh (Stanford U.P., 1989), believed the sculpture depicted neither figure, but rather a Mesopotamian "protective figure". Parhad defended the accuracy of his work, while also admitting that he took artistic liberties. | [
"Fred Parhad",
"Gilgamesh",
"San Francisco Arts Commission",
"clay tablet",
"Ashurbanipal",
"Mesopotamia",
"Sumer",
"Assyria",
"Assyrian",
"Statue",
"bronze sculpture",
"Epic of Gilgamesh",
"Civic Center",
"bronze",
"California",
"San Francisco",
"skirt",
"statue",
"king of the same name",
"artistic liberties",
"Assyrian people"
]
|
|
15171_NT | Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) | Explore the abstract of this artwork. | Ashurbanipal, also known as the Ashurbanipal Monument or the Statue of Ashurbanipal, is a bronze sculpture by Fred Parhad, an artist of Assyrian descent. It is located in the Civic Center of San Francisco, California, in the United States. The 15-foot (4.6 m) statue depicting the Assyrian king of the same name was commissioned by the Assyrian Foundation for the Arts and presented to the City of San Francisco in 1988 as a gift from the Assyrian people. The sculpture reportedly cost $100,000 and was the first "sizable" bronze statue of Ashurbanipal. It is administered by the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Arts Commission.
Parhad's work was met with some criticism by local Assyrians, who argued it was inaccurate to portray Ashurbanipal holding a clay tablet and a lion, or wearing a skirt. The critics thought the statue looked more like the Sumerian king Gilgamesh; Maureen Gallery Kovacs, a Yale Ph.D. who has translated The Epic of Gilgamesh (Stanford U.P., 1989), believed the sculpture depicted neither figure, but rather a Mesopotamian "protective figure". Parhad defended the accuracy of his work, while also admitting that he took artistic liberties. | [
"Fred Parhad",
"Gilgamesh",
"San Francisco Arts Commission",
"clay tablet",
"Ashurbanipal",
"Mesopotamia",
"Sumer",
"Assyria",
"Assyrian",
"Statue",
"bronze sculpture",
"Epic of Gilgamesh",
"Civic Center",
"bronze",
"California",
"San Francisco",
"skirt",
"statue",
"king of the same name",
"artistic liberties",
"Assyrian people"
]
|
|
15172_T | Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) | Focus on Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) and discuss the Background. | In Assyrian sculpture, the famous colossal entrance way guardian figures of lamassu were often accompanied by a hero grasping a wriggling lion with one hand and typically a snake with the other, also colossal and in high relief; these are generally the only other types of high relief in Assyrian sculpture. They continue the Master of Animals tradition in Mesopotamian art, and may represent Enkidu, a central figure in the Ancient Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh. In the palace of Sargon II at Khorsabad, a group of at least seven lamassu and two such heroes with lions surrounded the entrance to the "throne room", "a concentration of figures which produced an overwhelming impression of power." The arrangement was repeated in Sennacherib's palace at Nineveh. | [
"Gilgamesh",
"Mesopotamia",
"Assyria",
"Assyrian",
"Enkidu",
"Epic of Gilgamesh",
"Assyrian sculpture",
"Sennacherib",
"Khorsabad",
"lamassu",
"Nineveh",
"Master of Animals",
"Ancient Mesopotamia",
"Sargon II"
]
|
|
15172_NT | Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) | Focus on this artwork and discuss the Background. | In Assyrian sculpture, the famous colossal entrance way guardian figures of lamassu were often accompanied by a hero grasping a wriggling lion with one hand and typically a snake with the other, also colossal and in high relief; these are generally the only other types of high relief in Assyrian sculpture. They continue the Master of Animals tradition in Mesopotamian art, and may represent Enkidu, a central figure in the Ancient Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh. In the palace of Sargon II at Khorsabad, a group of at least seven lamassu and two such heroes with lions surrounded the entrance to the "throne room", "a concentration of figures which produced an overwhelming impression of power." The arrangement was repeated in Sennacherib's palace at Nineveh. | [
"Gilgamesh",
"Mesopotamia",
"Assyria",
"Assyrian",
"Enkidu",
"Epic of Gilgamesh",
"Assyrian sculpture",
"Sennacherib",
"Khorsabad",
"lamassu",
"Nineveh",
"Master of Animals",
"Ancient Mesopotamia",
"Sargon II"
]
|
|
15173_T | Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) | How does Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) elucidate its Description? | The 8-foot (2.4 m) patinated bronze statue, mounted on a base and a plinth to reach a total height of 15 feet (4.6 m), weighs approximately 1,800 pounds (820 kg). It depicts Ashurbanipal, the Assyrian king known for building the eponymously named Library of Ashurbanipal, the first and largest library in Nineveh. The bearded king is shown wearing earrings and a tunic; he is holding a clay tablet in one hand and restraining a lion cub against his chest with the other. According to the Historical Marker Database, the cuneiform inscribed on the tablet reads: "Peace unto heaven and earth / Peace unto countries and cities / Peace unto the dwellers in all lands / This is the statue presented to the City of San Francisco by the Assyrian people in the 210th year of America's sovereignty".The "larger-than-life", full length statue stands above a plinth adorned with a lotus blossom design and a concrete base with an anti-graffiti coating. The base includes rosettes and a bronze plaque. One inscription below the statue reads the text of the tablet in English, Akkadian cuneiform and Aramaic. The text "Ashurbanipal, King of Assyria, 669–627 B.C." appears above and the text "Dedicated May 29, 1988" appears below, both in English. Another inscription below the statue reads, "Presented to the City of San Francisco by the Assyrian Foundation for the Arts through donations of American Assyrian Association of San Francisco / Assyrian American National Federation", followed by a list of names of donors. In December 2010, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a large plaque from the sculpture was missing. | [
"cuneiform",
"clay tablet",
"concrete",
"Ashurbanipal",
"Aramaic",
"Assyria",
"Assyrian",
"Akkadian",
"earring",
"lotus",
"anti-graffiti coating",
"plinth",
"tunic",
"bronze",
"San Francisco",
"Library of Ashurbanipal",
"patina",
"Nineveh",
"San Francisco Chronicle",
"statue",
"Assyrian people"
]
|
|
15173_NT | Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) | How does this artwork elucidate its Description? | The 8-foot (2.4 m) patinated bronze statue, mounted on a base and a plinth to reach a total height of 15 feet (4.6 m), weighs approximately 1,800 pounds (820 kg). It depicts Ashurbanipal, the Assyrian king known for building the eponymously named Library of Ashurbanipal, the first and largest library in Nineveh. The bearded king is shown wearing earrings and a tunic; he is holding a clay tablet in one hand and restraining a lion cub against his chest with the other. According to the Historical Marker Database, the cuneiform inscribed on the tablet reads: "Peace unto heaven and earth / Peace unto countries and cities / Peace unto the dwellers in all lands / This is the statue presented to the City of San Francisco by the Assyrian people in the 210th year of America's sovereignty".The "larger-than-life", full length statue stands above a plinth adorned with a lotus blossom design and a concrete base with an anti-graffiti coating. The base includes rosettes and a bronze plaque. One inscription below the statue reads the text of the tablet in English, Akkadian cuneiform and Aramaic. The text "Ashurbanipal, King of Assyria, 669–627 B.C." appears above and the text "Dedicated May 29, 1988" appears below, both in English. Another inscription below the statue reads, "Presented to the City of San Francisco by the Assyrian Foundation for the Arts through donations of American Assyrian Association of San Francisco / Assyrian American National Federation", followed by a list of names of donors. In December 2010, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a large plaque from the sculpture was missing. | [
"cuneiform",
"clay tablet",
"concrete",
"Ashurbanipal",
"Aramaic",
"Assyria",
"Assyrian",
"Akkadian",
"earring",
"lotus",
"anti-graffiti coating",
"plinth",
"tunic",
"bronze",
"San Francisco",
"Library of Ashurbanipal",
"patina",
"Nineveh",
"San Francisco Chronicle",
"statue",
"Assyrian people"
]
|
|
15174_T | Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) | Focus on Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) and analyze the History. | Ashurbanipal was designed by Fred Parhad, an Iraqi-born artist of Assyrian descent. Parhad rejected formal arts studies at the University of California, Berkeley and relocated to New York, where the Metropolitan Museum of Art allowed him to study its Assyrian collection. The work was commissioned by the Assyrian Foundation for the Arts under the direction of its president, Narsai David. The Assyrian Universal Alliance Foundation also claims to have commissioned the work. Funds were collected from Assyrians throughout the United States.In 1987, The Telegraph reported that the work cost $100,000 and was the first "sizable" bronze statue of Ashurbanipal. It was presented to the City of San Francisco as a gift from the Assyrian people on May 29, 1988, unveiled at the entry to the Asian Art Museum on Van Ness Avenue. The statue now stands on Fulton Street between the Main Library and Asian Art Museum, within the city's Civic Center. It is administered by the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Arts Commission.The Smithsonian Institution lists Frank Tomsick as the installation's architect and MBT Associates as its architectural firm. Ashurbanipal was surveyed by the Smithsonian's Save Outdoor Sculpture! program in 1992. In 1996, plans for a Civic Center pedestrian mall were being developed by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association; one planner advocated for construction of an Assyrian garden, including lotus blossoms, pomegranate trees and reeds, at the site of the statue. | [
"Fred Parhad",
"Narsai David",
"San Francisco Arts Commission",
"Ashurbanipal",
"Van Ness Avenue",
"University of California, Berkeley",
"Assyria",
"Assyrian",
"The Telegraph",
"Asian Art Museum",
"Smithsonian Institution",
"Assyrians throughout the United States",
"Civic Center",
"lotus",
"Sculpture",
"bronze",
"California",
"San Francisco",
"Main Library",
"Save Outdoor Sculpture!",
"Iraq",
"statue",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art",
"Assyrian people"
]
|
|
15174_NT | Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) | Focus on this artwork and analyze the History. | Ashurbanipal was designed by Fred Parhad, an Iraqi-born artist of Assyrian descent. Parhad rejected formal arts studies at the University of California, Berkeley and relocated to New York, where the Metropolitan Museum of Art allowed him to study its Assyrian collection. The work was commissioned by the Assyrian Foundation for the Arts under the direction of its president, Narsai David. The Assyrian Universal Alliance Foundation also claims to have commissioned the work. Funds were collected from Assyrians throughout the United States.In 1987, The Telegraph reported that the work cost $100,000 and was the first "sizable" bronze statue of Ashurbanipal. It was presented to the City of San Francisco as a gift from the Assyrian people on May 29, 1988, unveiled at the entry to the Asian Art Museum on Van Ness Avenue. The statue now stands on Fulton Street between the Main Library and Asian Art Museum, within the city's Civic Center. It is administered by the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Arts Commission.The Smithsonian Institution lists Frank Tomsick as the installation's architect and MBT Associates as its architectural firm. Ashurbanipal was surveyed by the Smithsonian's Save Outdoor Sculpture! program in 1992. In 1996, plans for a Civic Center pedestrian mall were being developed by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association; one planner advocated for construction of an Assyrian garden, including lotus blossoms, pomegranate trees and reeds, at the site of the statue. | [
"Fred Parhad",
"Narsai David",
"San Francisco Arts Commission",
"Ashurbanipal",
"Van Ness Avenue",
"University of California, Berkeley",
"Assyria",
"Assyrian",
"The Telegraph",
"Asian Art Museum",
"Smithsonian Institution",
"Assyrians throughout the United States",
"Civic Center",
"lotus",
"Sculpture",
"bronze",
"California",
"San Francisco",
"Main Library",
"Save Outdoor Sculpture!",
"Iraq",
"statue",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art",
"Assyrian people"
]
|
|
15175_T | Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) | In Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco), how is the Reception discussed? | In December 1987, as news began to circulate about the commissioned work, local Assyrians accused Parhad of misrepresenting Ashurbanipal. Criticisms included the depiction of the king holding both a clay tablet and a lion, which they argued he "wouldn't do", and for dressing him in a skirt, which they claimed he would never have worn. The critics thought the statue made a better portrayal of the Sumerian king Gilgamesh. One critic said: It's very simple. The statue represents Gilgamesh.... No Assyrian has a right to imagine things about our king. It's exactly like making a copy of the Statue of Liberty and saying it is George Washington.... Assyrian kings didn't wear miniskirts. They wouldn't have been holding a lion or a book. It's an insult to the Assyrians. Narsai David responded: They are entitled to their opinion.... We have never said this is a museum-quality reproduction.... We have always said this is a characterization of Ashurbanipal as done by a 20th-century artist. If they choose to think of this as Gilgamesh, they are free to do so.
Maureen (Renee) Kovacs, a Yale Ph.D. who has translated The Epic of Gilgamesh (Stanford U.P., 1989), said the statue depicted neither Ashurbanipal nor Gilgamesh, but rather a Mesopotamian "protective figure, like a guard." Parhad defended the accuracy of his work, while also admitting that he took artistic liberties and attempted to incorporate the various aspects of Assyrian culture, from its hunting mastery to its admiration for writing. He said of the sculpture: The piece has authentic qualities to it, but it is also my statue.... With the earrings and the clothing and the hair and his daggers, it is Ashurbanipal. But in the choice of (stance), the fact that he is holding a tablet and a lion, that is mine. I wanted myself to be represented in the piece. | [
"Narsai David",
"Gilgamesh",
"clay tablet",
"Ashurbanipal",
"Mesopotamia",
"Sumer",
"Assyria",
"Assyrian",
"Statue",
"Epic of Gilgamesh",
"earring",
"skirt",
"statue",
"artistic liberties"
]
|
|
15175_NT | Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) | In this artwork, how is the Reception discussed? | In December 1987, as news began to circulate about the commissioned work, local Assyrians accused Parhad of misrepresenting Ashurbanipal. Criticisms included the depiction of the king holding both a clay tablet and a lion, which they argued he "wouldn't do", and for dressing him in a skirt, which they claimed he would never have worn. The critics thought the statue made a better portrayal of the Sumerian king Gilgamesh. One critic said: It's very simple. The statue represents Gilgamesh.... No Assyrian has a right to imagine things about our king. It's exactly like making a copy of the Statue of Liberty and saying it is George Washington.... Assyrian kings didn't wear miniskirts. They wouldn't have been holding a lion or a book. It's an insult to the Assyrians. Narsai David responded: They are entitled to their opinion.... We have never said this is a museum-quality reproduction.... We have always said this is a characterization of Ashurbanipal as done by a 20th-century artist. If they choose to think of this as Gilgamesh, they are free to do so.
Maureen (Renee) Kovacs, a Yale Ph.D. who has translated The Epic of Gilgamesh (Stanford U.P., 1989), said the statue depicted neither Ashurbanipal nor Gilgamesh, but rather a Mesopotamian "protective figure, like a guard." Parhad defended the accuracy of his work, while also admitting that he took artistic liberties and attempted to incorporate the various aspects of Assyrian culture, from its hunting mastery to its admiration for writing. He said of the sculpture: The piece has authentic qualities to it, but it is also my statue.... With the earrings and the clothing and the hair and his daggers, it is Ashurbanipal. But in the choice of (stance), the fact that he is holding a tablet and a lion, that is mine. I wanted myself to be represented in the piece. | [
"Narsai David",
"Gilgamesh",
"clay tablet",
"Ashurbanipal",
"Mesopotamia",
"Sumer",
"Assyria",
"Assyrian",
"Statue",
"Epic of Gilgamesh",
"earring",
"skirt",
"statue",
"artistic liberties"
]
|
|
15176_T | The Card Players | Focus on The Card Players and explore the abstract. | The Card Players is a series of oil paintings by the French Post-Impressionist artist Paul Cézanne. Painted during Cézanne's final period in the early 1890s, there are five paintings in the series. The versions vary in size, the number of players, and the setting in which the game takes place. Cézanne also completed numerous drawings and studies in preparation for The Card Players series.
One version of The Card Players was sold in 2000s to the Royal Family of Qatar for a price estimated at $250 million ($325.2 million today), signifying a new mark for highest ever price for a painting, not surpassed until November 2017. | [
"French",
"highest ever price for a painting",
"Royal Family of Qatar",
"Qatar",
"final period",
"Post-Impressionist",
"until November 2017",
"Paul Cézanne"
]
|
|
15176_NT | The Card Players | Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract. | The Card Players is a series of oil paintings by the French Post-Impressionist artist Paul Cézanne. Painted during Cézanne's final period in the early 1890s, there are five paintings in the series. The versions vary in size, the number of players, and the setting in which the game takes place. Cézanne also completed numerous drawings and studies in preparation for The Card Players series.
One version of The Card Players was sold in 2000s to the Royal Family of Qatar for a price estimated at $250 million ($325.2 million today), signifying a new mark for highest ever price for a painting, not surpassed until November 2017. | [
"French",
"highest ever price for a painting",
"Royal Family of Qatar",
"Qatar",
"final period",
"Post-Impressionist",
"until November 2017",
"Paul Cézanne"
]
|
|
15177_T | The Card Players | Focus on The Card Players and explain the Studies and sketches. | Cézanne created a substantial number of studies and preparatory drawings for The Card Players series. While it had long been believed he began the series with the largest paintings and subsequently worked smaller, 21st-century x-rays of the paintings as well as further analysis of preparatory sketches and studies has led some scholars to believe Cézanne used both the studies and the smaller versions of The Card Players to prepare for the larger canvases.Over a dozen initial sketches and painted studies of local farmworkers were made by Cézanne in preparation for the final paintings. It has been speculated his models sat for the studies rather than the finished works themselves, and the painter possibly sketched preliminary work in an Aix cafe.Some of the studies have been well regarded as stand-alone works of their own volition, particularly the accompaniment piece Man with a Pipe, displayed alongside The Card Players at the Courtauld Gallery in London. The former, along with two similar paintings of smokers undertaken in the same period, are considered by many to be some of Cézanne's most masterful portraits. | [
"Courtauld Gallery",
"x-ray"
]
|
|
15177_NT | The Card Players | Focus on this artwork and explain the Studies and sketches. | Cézanne created a substantial number of studies and preparatory drawings for The Card Players series. While it had long been believed he began the series with the largest paintings and subsequently worked smaller, 21st-century x-rays of the paintings as well as further analysis of preparatory sketches and studies has led some scholars to believe Cézanne used both the studies and the smaller versions of The Card Players to prepare for the larger canvases.Over a dozen initial sketches and painted studies of local farmworkers were made by Cézanne in preparation for the final paintings. It has been speculated his models sat for the studies rather than the finished works themselves, and the painter possibly sketched preliminary work in an Aix cafe.Some of the studies have been well regarded as stand-alone works of their own volition, particularly the accompaniment piece Man with a Pipe, displayed alongside The Card Players at the Courtauld Gallery in London. The former, along with two similar paintings of smokers undertaken in the same period, are considered by many to be some of Cézanne's most masterful portraits. | [
"Courtauld Gallery",
"x-ray"
]
|
|
15178_T | The Card Players | Explore the Exhibitions of this artwork, The Card Players. | In 2010–11, a joint exhibition was curated by the Courtauld Gallery in London and Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York to display The Card Players paintings, early studies and sketches of the series, and accompanying works. The exhibition ran in London from 21 October 2010 to 16 January 2011 and in New York from 9 February 2011 to 8 May 2011.
It was described as the first exhibition devoted to the series as well as the largest collection of Cézanne's Card Players paintings to ever be exhibited together. The exhibition included the paintings owned by the Courtauld, Metropolitan, and Musée d'Orsay. The versions at the Barnes Foundation and in a private collection were displayed as prints, due to the Barnes' policy of not lending and the private collector declining to release the work. The mini-series of men smoking pipes sometimes referred to as The Smokers was also included with over a dozen other studies and sketches, however a legal dispute also prevented the Hermitage Museum's version of Man with a Pipe from traveling to New York. | [
"Musée d'Orsay",
"Hermitage Museum",
"Courtauld Gallery",
"Barnes Foundation",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art"
]
|
|
15178_NT | The Card Players | Explore the Exhibitions of this artwork. | In 2010–11, a joint exhibition was curated by the Courtauld Gallery in London and Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York to display The Card Players paintings, early studies and sketches of the series, and accompanying works. The exhibition ran in London from 21 October 2010 to 16 January 2011 and in New York from 9 February 2011 to 8 May 2011.
It was described as the first exhibition devoted to the series as well as the largest collection of Cézanne's Card Players paintings to ever be exhibited together. The exhibition included the paintings owned by the Courtauld, Metropolitan, and Musée d'Orsay. The versions at the Barnes Foundation and in a private collection were displayed as prints, due to the Barnes' policy of not lending and the private collector declining to release the work. The mini-series of men smoking pipes sometimes referred to as The Smokers was also included with over a dozen other studies and sketches, however a legal dispute also prevented the Hermitage Museum's version of Man with a Pipe from traveling to New York. | [
"Musée d'Orsay",
"Hermitage Museum",
"Courtauld Gallery",
"Barnes Foundation",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art"
]
|
|
15179_T | Tauzieher | Focus on Tauzieher and discuss the abstract. | The Tauzieher (German for "rope puller") is a limestone sculpture by Nikolaus Friedrich which was erected in 1911 in Rheinauhafen, Cologne. It depicts a man making a heavy rope or hawser fast to a bollard and is 6.5 metres (21 feet) in height. In 1980, it was listed as one of the first heritage sites in Cologne. | [
"bollard",
"sculpture",
"Cologne",
"Nikolaus Friedrich",
"Rheinauhafen",
"limestone",
"German",
"hawser",
"heritage site"
]
|
|
15179_NT | Tauzieher | Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract. | The Tauzieher (German for "rope puller") is a limestone sculpture by Nikolaus Friedrich which was erected in 1911 in Rheinauhafen, Cologne. It depicts a man making a heavy rope or hawser fast to a bollard and is 6.5 metres (21 feet) in height. In 1980, it was listed as one of the first heritage sites in Cologne. | [
"bollard",
"sculpture",
"Cologne",
"Nikolaus Friedrich",
"Rheinauhafen",
"limestone",
"German",
"hawser",
"heritage site"
]
|
|
15180_T | Tauzieher | How does Tauzieher elucidate its History? | Nikolaus Friedrich was a German sculptor, born in Cologne and working in Charlottenburg. In the 1908 art show of the Association of Cologne Artists at the Flora und Botanischer Garten Köln, he exhibited a sculpted male figure that excited considerable admiration in art circles. A plan was devised to install a version of the work, about twice the size of the original, on an appropriate site in the city. The Cologne friends of the arts took up a collection and when the amount collected was insufficient, the city pledged the remainder. The chosen location was a vacant piece of ground next to the timber market, opposite the new harbour. Erection of the scaffolding began on 21 September 1910. The statue was unveiled on 4 March 1911. It was the first free-standing sculpture in public space in Cologne.
The work is approximately 6.5 metres (21 ft) tall, of which the base makes up a little more than half. A reporter wrote in the Kölnisches Tageblatt:"The Herculean naked man has climbed upon the bollard, which emerges at its base from unformed rock, and, leaning forwards, is hauling the rope up in order to secure it to it. His legs are clamped around the wood [of the bollard], and while his right [hand] is busy pulling the big hawser up with all his strength, the left firmly grasps the bollard."
In the pose and the modelling of the naked and muscular upper body, the statue is reminiscent of the Belvedere Torso.Together with the nearby swing bridge and the railing on the pier, the Tauzieher was listed as a historical monument (number 66) on 1 July 1980 shortly after the North Rhine-Westphalia state law for the protection of monuments went into effect that day.Tauzieher has been the subject of one of Tatzu Nishi's transformations, Obdach (1997). | [
"North Rhine-Westphalia",
"bollard",
"statue",
"scaffolding",
"sculpture",
"Flora und Botanischer Garten Köln",
"harbour",
"Tatzu Nishi",
"Cologne",
"Belvedere Torso",
"Charlottenburg",
"Nikolaus Friedrich",
"left",
"Kölnisches Tageblatt",
"German",
"hawser"
]
|
|
15180_NT | Tauzieher | How does this artwork elucidate its History? | Nikolaus Friedrich was a German sculptor, born in Cologne and working in Charlottenburg. In the 1908 art show of the Association of Cologne Artists at the Flora und Botanischer Garten Köln, he exhibited a sculpted male figure that excited considerable admiration in art circles. A plan was devised to install a version of the work, about twice the size of the original, on an appropriate site in the city. The Cologne friends of the arts took up a collection and when the amount collected was insufficient, the city pledged the remainder. The chosen location was a vacant piece of ground next to the timber market, opposite the new harbour. Erection of the scaffolding began on 21 September 1910. The statue was unveiled on 4 March 1911. It was the first free-standing sculpture in public space in Cologne.
The work is approximately 6.5 metres (21 ft) tall, of which the base makes up a little more than half. A reporter wrote in the Kölnisches Tageblatt:"The Herculean naked man has climbed upon the bollard, which emerges at its base from unformed rock, and, leaning forwards, is hauling the rope up in order to secure it to it. His legs are clamped around the wood [of the bollard], and while his right [hand] is busy pulling the big hawser up with all his strength, the left firmly grasps the bollard."
In the pose and the modelling of the naked and muscular upper body, the statue is reminiscent of the Belvedere Torso.Together with the nearby swing bridge and the railing on the pier, the Tauzieher was listed as a historical monument (number 66) on 1 July 1980 shortly after the North Rhine-Westphalia state law for the protection of monuments went into effect that day.Tauzieher has been the subject of one of Tatzu Nishi's transformations, Obdach (1997). | [
"North Rhine-Westphalia",
"bollard",
"statue",
"scaffolding",
"sculpture",
"Flora und Botanischer Garten Köln",
"harbour",
"Tatzu Nishi",
"Cologne",
"Belvedere Torso",
"Charlottenburg",
"Nikolaus Friedrich",
"left",
"Kölnisches Tageblatt",
"German",
"hawser"
]
|
|
15181_T | Le Clown au Cirque | Focus on Le Clown au Cirque and analyze the abstract. | Le Clown au Cirque is a tempera and pen and ink on board painting by Belarusian-French artist Marc Chagall created in 1980. It is held in a private collection. | [
"Marc Chagall"
]
|
|
15181_NT | Le Clown au Cirque | Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract. | Le Clown au Cirque is a tempera and pen and ink on board painting by Belarusian-French artist Marc Chagall created in 1980. It is held in a private collection. | [
"Marc Chagall"
]
|
|
15182_T | Le Clown au Cirque | In Le Clown au Cirque, how is the Description discussed? | The painting depicts floating clowns amid the circus ring in the middle of the performance. The subject of circus was dear to the artist. Chagall often returned to the circus as a subject matter in his artworks. He considered clowns, acrobats and actors as tragically human beings who are like characters in certain religious paintings.Among other contemporary painters who featured the circus in their works are Seurat, Toulouse-Lautrec, Picasso, Rouault, Van Dongen and Léger. | [
"Picasso",
"Léger",
"Rouault",
"Van Dongen",
"Seurat",
"Toulouse-Lautrec"
]
|
|
15182_NT | Le Clown au Cirque | In this artwork, how is the Description discussed? | The painting depicts floating clowns amid the circus ring in the middle of the performance. The subject of circus was dear to the artist. Chagall often returned to the circus as a subject matter in his artworks. He considered clowns, acrobats and actors as tragically human beings who are like characters in certain religious paintings.Among other contemporary painters who featured the circus in their works are Seurat, Toulouse-Lautrec, Picasso, Rouault, Van Dongen and Léger. | [
"Picasso",
"Léger",
"Rouault",
"Van Dongen",
"Seurat",
"Toulouse-Lautrec"
]
|
|
15183_T | SOARING | Focus on SOARING and explore the abstract. | SOARING is a public art work by American artist Lyle London, located in Reiman Plaza at Alverno College on the south side of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The abstract stainless steel sculpture rises 20 feet from a fountain. London's commission was coordinated by Uhlein-Wilson Architects. | [
"Milwaukee",
"American",
"Alverno College",
"Lyle London",
"Wisconsin",
"public art"
]
|
|
15183_NT | SOARING | Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract. | SOARING is a public art work by American artist Lyle London, located in Reiman Plaza at Alverno College on the south side of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The abstract stainless steel sculpture rises 20 feet from a fountain. London's commission was coordinated by Uhlein-Wilson Architects. | [
"Milwaukee",
"American",
"Alverno College",
"Lyle London",
"Wisconsin",
"public art"
]
|
|
15184_T | Mirth & Girth | Explore the Harold Washington about the Background of this artwork, Mirth & Girth. |
Harold Washington, the subject of the portrait, was elected in 1965 to the Illinois House of Representatives. Washington won Chicago's 1983 Democratic mayoral primary election, defeating Jane Byrne and Richard M. Daley. He was then elected mayor, prevailing over Bernard Epton in a racially polarizing general election. His first four-year term was characterized by the Council Wars, a period of political conflict with the mostly white aldermanic majority in City Council. Seven Washington-backed aldermanic challengers prevailed in the April, 1986 special municipal election, facilitating progress with Washington's agenda. Washington died suddenly of a heart attack in his office. His death was followed by a period of mourning by Chicagoans, particularly in the African-American community. | [
"Chicago",
"Illinois House of Representatives",
"Jane Byrne",
"Council Wars",
"City Council",
"Richard M. Daley",
"Harold Washington",
"Bernard Epton"
]
|
|
15184_NT | Mirth & Girth | Explore the Harold Washington about the Background of this artwork. |
Harold Washington, the subject of the portrait, was elected in 1965 to the Illinois House of Representatives. Washington won Chicago's 1983 Democratic mayoral primary election, defeating Jane Byrne and Richard M. Daley. He was then elected mayor, prevailing over Bernard Epton in a racially polarizing general election. His first four-year term was characterized by the Council Wars, a period of political conflict with the mostly white aldermanic majority in City Council. Seven Washington-backed aldermanic challengers prevailed in the April, 1986 special municipal election, facilitating progress with Washington's agenda. Washington died suddenly of a heart attack in his office. His death was followed by a period of mourning by Chicagoans, particularly in the African-American community. | [
"Chicago",
"Illinois House of Representatives",
"Jane Byrne",
"Council Wars",
"City Council",
"Richard M. Daley",
"Harold Washington",
"Bernard Epton"
]
|
|
15185_T | Mirth & Girth | In the context of Mirth & Girth, discuss the Creation of painting of the Background. | Shortly after Washington's death, Nelson (who is white) painted Mirth & Girth, a "full-length frontal portrait of a portly grim-faced Harold Washington clad in a white bra and G-string, garter belt, and stockings". The painting was approximately 4 feet (122 cm) tall by 3 feet (91 cm) wide. In the portrait, Washington is holding a pencil in his right hand. His aide, Alton Miller, initially mistook Washington's slumping over his desk as an attempt to pick up a pencil that had fallen onto the floor. The title of the piece is presumably derived from Girth & Mirth, an organization for overweight gay men.In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Nelson stated that he had painted Mirth & Girth over the course of one night, standing in his underwear. He said that he had painted it in response to how the city populace revered Washington shortly after his death. Nelson stated, "(i)n Chicago, at this time, Harold Washington is like an icon. He's like a deity." In particular, Nelson painted the portrait after seeing prints of "Worry Ye Not", another poster that depicted a smiling Washington with a blue-robe adorned Jesus Christ, looking down on the Chicago skyline. Nelson later testified that he had based the iconoclastic elements of the painting on a rumor that doctors at Northwestern Memorial Hospital had discovered female underwear beneath the suit Washington was wearing at the time of his death. Three weeks after the controversy erupted, in an interview with the New Art Examiner, Nelson explained that the portrait referenced an existing photograph of Washington holding a cigarette prop at an American Cancer Society event.The caricature was not Nelson's first. He had drawn a portrait of his mother as Whistler's Mother for Mother's Day. Nelson had also drawn a caricature of his father as the model depicted on boxes of Cream of Wheat. Nelson explained, "(t)his kind of irreverence and iconoclasm runs through all my artwork". In an April Fools' Day edition of a Weekly World News parody produced by Nelson, he illustrated SAIC president Anthony Jones as an infant in the arms of a bare-breasted Madonna. | [
"Madonna",
"Jesus",
"Girth & Mirth",
"Chicago",
"American Cancer Society",
"overweight gay men",
"Northwestern Memorial Hospital",
"G-string",
"Weekly World News",
"iconoclasm",
"Chicago Sun-Times",
"SAIC",
"New Art Examiner",
"Jesus Christ",
"Whistler's Mother",
"iconoclastic",
"Harold Washington",
"Cream of Wheat"
]
|
|
15185_NT | Mirth & Girth | In the context of this artwork, discuss the Creation of painting of the Background. | Shortly after Washington's death, Nelson (who is white) painted Mirth & Girth, a "full-length frontal portrait of a portly grim-faced Harold Washington clad in a white bra and G-string, garter belt, and stockings". The painting was approximately 4 feet (122 cm) tall by 3 feet (91 cm) wide. In the portrait, Washington is holding a pencil in his right hand. His aide, Alton Miller, initially mistook Washington's slumping over his desk as an attempt to pick up a pencil that had fallen onto the floor. The title of the piece is presumably derived from Girth & Mirth, an organization for overweight gay men.In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Nelson stated that he had painted Mirth & Girth over the course of one night, standing in his underwear. He said that he had painted it in response to how the city populace revered Washington shortly after his death. Nelson stated, "(i)n Chicago, at this time, Harold Washington is like an icon. He's like a deity." In particular, Nelson painted the portrait after seeing prints of "Worry Ye Not", another poster that depicted a smiling Washington with a blue-robe adorned Jesus Christ, looking down on the Chicago skyline. Nelson later testified that he had based the iconoclastic elements of the painting on a rumor that doctors at Northwestern Memorial Hospital had discovered female underwear beneath the suit Washington was wearing at the time of his death. Three weeks after the controversy erupted, in an interview with the New Art Examiner, Nelson explained that the portrait referenced an existing photograph of Washington holding a cigarette prop at an American Cancer Society event.The caricature was not Nelson's first. He had drawn a portrait of his mother as Whistler's Mother for Mother's Day. Nelson had also drawn a caricature of his father as the model depicted on boxes of Cream of Wheat. Nelson explained, "(t)his kind of irreverence and iconoclasm runs through all my artwork". In an April Fools' Day edition of a Weekly World News parody produced by Nelson, he illustrated SAIC president Anthony Jones as an infant in the arms of a bare-breasted Madonna. | [
"Madonna",
"Jesus",
"Girth & Mirth",
"Chicago",
"American Cancer Society",
"overweight gay men",
"Northwestern Memorial Hospital",
"G-string",
"Weekly World News",
"iconoclasm",
"Chicago Sun-Times",
"SAIC",
"New Art Examiner",
"Jesus Christ",
"Whistler's Mother",
"iconoclastic",
"Harold Washington",
"Cream of Wheat"
]
|
|
15186_T | Mirth & Girth | In the context of Mirth & Girth, analyze the Initial display of the Display and confiscation. | On May 11, 1988, Mirth & Girth was displayed at a private exhibition in one of the school's main interior hallways. The painting was part of a set of six that Nelson was displaying in a judged three-day student fellowship exhibition held to showcase upcoming graduates. Another of his works was a self-portrait titled "I'm Sensitive, and I Love All Humanity", depicting Nelson holding little people of multiple nationalities. As soon as the exhibit opened, between 7:30 and 8:30 am, the painting drew enough negative attention for the Art Institute to post a security guard in front of the painting. Shortly thereafter, the school began to receive angry phone calls about the painting.Soon after the exhibit opened, word of the controversy reached the Chicago City Council, which was in session. Alderman Bobby Rush (then of the 2nd ward) immediately put together a resolution that would cut off the city's contribution to the Art Institute unless it apologized for displaying the painting. In part, the resolution read "Whereas, the artist David Nelson obviously exhibits some type of demented and pathological mental capacities ...". Another resolution was written that asked the Art Institute to remove the painting immediately. After passing both items, a group of aldermen left to deliver the resolutions to the Art Institute.Nelson returned to the painting about an hour after it was first displayed. He had forgotten a hammer and nails to hang the painting, and had left it leaning against the wall for an hour. Shortly after he returned, city aldermen, police officers and local reporters arrived at the scene, leading to a dramatic confrontation between aldermen and other students, while Nelson remained incognito nearby. | [
"Chicago",
"aldermen",
"Chicago City Council",
"Bobby Rush",
"City Council"
]
|
|
15186_NT | Mirth & Girth | In the context of this artwork, analyze the Initial display of the Display and confiscation. | On May 11, 1988, Mirth & Girth was displayed at a private exhibition in one of the school's main interior hallways. The painting was part of a set of six that Nelson was displaying in a judged three-day student fellowship exhibition held to showcase upcoming graduates. Another of his works was a self-portrait titled "I'm Sensitive, and I Love All Humanity", depicting Nelson holding little people of multiple nationalities. As soon as the exhibit opened, between 7:30 and 8:30 am, the painting drew enough negative attention for the Art Institute to post a security guard in front of the painting. Shortly thereafter, the school began to receive angry phone calls about the painting.Soon after the exhibit opened, word of the controversy reached the Chicago City Council, which was in session. Alderman Bobby Rush (then of the 2nd ward) immediately put together a resolution that would cut off the city's contribution to the Art Institute unless it apologized for displaying the painting. In part, the resolution read "Whereas, the artist David Nelson obviously exhibits some type of demented and pathological mental capacities ...". Another resolution was written that asked the Art Institute to remove the painting immediately. After passing both items, a group of aldermen left to deliver the resolutions to the Art Institute.Nelson returned to the painting about an hour after it was first displayed. He had forgotten a hammer and nails to hang the painting, and had left it leaning against the wall for an hour. Shortly after he returned, city aldermen, police officers and local reporters arrived at the scene, leading to a dramatic confrontation between aldermen and other students, while Nelson remained incognito nearby. | [
"Chicago",
"aldermen",
"Chicago City Council",
"Bobby Rush",
"City Council"
]
|
|
15187_T | Mirth & Girth | Describe the characteristics of the Confiscation in Mirth & Girth's Display and confiscation. | Aldermen Edward Jones (20th) and William C. Henry (24th) were the first aldermen to arrive from the City Council session. According to the federal lawsuit, Henry showed he had a gun, and then with Jones removed the now-hung painting from the wall and placed it on the floor, facing the wall. After they left, another student rehung the painting. Three other aldermen, Allan Streeter (17th), Dorothy Tillman (3rd) and Rush, arrived later. They took down the painting and attempted to remove it from the school, but were stopped by a school official. The aldermen then took the painting to the office of the school president Anthony Jones (no relation to Edward Jones). The painting had a 5 in (13 cm) gash, and it had been wrapped in brown paper.Alderman Tillman threatened to burn the painting in President Jones' office, but a Chicago Police Department (CPD) lieutenant present with the aldermen, Lt. Raymond Patterson, advised against this. Instead, another unnamed alderman called CPD superintendent Leroy Martin. Martin telephoned Patterson in Jones' office and ordered Patterson to take the painting into police custody, telling Jones that the painting amounted to "incitement to riot". Patterson overrode this direct order, citing his own powers as the lieutenant on the scene and hung up on Martin. A CPD sergeant accompanied Rush, Streeter and Tillman to a waiting police car with the wrapped painting in hand. Parts of the incident were later broadcast on television.The incident was marked by a volatile shouting match between the aldermen and students, and met with condemnation from free-speech advocates. As the aldermen escorted the painting to the police vehicle, a mass of students outside of the Art Institute jeered them, naming the aldermen "commies", "fascists", "brownshirts" and "philistines". Seventeen bomb threats were recorded at the school after the controversy erupted. | [
"Chicago",
"superintendent",
"brownshirt",
"Chicago Police Department",
"aldermen",
"philistines",
"Dorothy Tillman",
"City Council",
"William C. Henry",
"Edward Jones"
]
|
|
15187_NT | Mirth & Girth | Describe the characteristics of the Confiscation in this artwork's Display and confiscation. | Aldermen Edward Jones (20th) and William C. Henry (24th) were the first aldermen to arrive from the City Council session. According to the federal lawsuit, Henry showed he had a gun, and then with Jones removed the now-hung painting from the wall and placed it on the floor, facing the wall. After they left, another student rehung the painting. Three other aldermen, Allan Streeter (17th), Dorothy Tillman (3rd) and Rush, arrived later. They took down the painting and attempted to remove it from the school, but were stopped by a school official. The aldermen then took the painting to the office of the school president Anthony Jones (no relation to Edward Jones). The painting had a 5 in (13 cm) gash, and it had been wrapped in brown paper.Alderman Tillman threatened to burn the painting in President Jones' office, but a Chicago Police Department (CPD) lieutenant present with the aldermen, Lt. Raymond Patterson, advised against this. Instead, another unnamed alderman called CPD superintendent Leroy Martin. Martin telephoned Patterson in Jones' office and ordered Patterson to take the painting into police custody, telling Jones that the painting amounted to "incitement to riot". Patterson overrode this direct order, citing his own powers as the lieutenant on the scene and hung up on Martin. A CPD sergeant accompanied Rush, Streeter and Tillman to a waiting police car with the wrapped painting in hand. Parts of the incident were later broadcast on television.The incident was marked by a volatile shouting match between the aldermen and students, and met with condemnation from free-speech advocates. As the aldermen escorted the painting to the police vehicle, a mass of students outside of the Art Institute jeered them, naming the aldermen "commies", "fascists", "brownshirts" and "philistines". Seventeen bomb threats were recorded at the school after the controversy erupted. | [
"Chicago",
"superintendent",
"brownshirt",
"Chicago Police Department",
"aldermen",
"philistines",
"Dorothy Tillman",
"City Council",
"William C. Henry",
"Edward Jones"
]
|
|
15188_T | Mirth & Girth | In the context of Mirth & Girth, explain the African-American community of the Responses. | Shortly after the incident, a black alderman told reporters that he believed the painting was the work of a Jewish artist. Nelson replied through a Chicago Tribune story that he "is not Jewish". The remark was made in part because racial tensions had already been elevated a week earlier after the firing of Steve Cokely, a mayoral aide, by African-American mayor and Harold Washington's successor Eugene Sawyer. Cokely had accused Jews of "engaging in an international conspiracy for world control". His firing caused a rift in segments of the black community, leading some to believe that Sawyer was also involved in the same conspiracy.In a New York Times article published on May 13, 1988, Alderman Streeter reiterated his stance regarding the removal of the painting, saying that he would have "gone to jail to get that painting down", calling it "an insult to a great man and an affront to blacks". On May 16, 1988, Streeter appeared on the local public television station news program Chicago Tonight. He reinforced that Nelson had abdicated his "responsibility to his constituency" to "do what is right". In the segment, he reaffirmed that he believed the aldermen had "a law, the law of common sense, the law of morality, the law of decency [that] transcends the First Amendment".
Operation PUSH, an organization that pursues social justice and civil rights, threatened to impose "sanctions" on the Art Institute unless the Art Institute acted to prevent offensive portraits from being shown by students or contributing artists in the future. Separately, the Illinois Alliance of Black Student Organizations called for racial parity with regards to faculty and student enrollment within the school. African-American students alleged that there was an underlying attitude of racism at the school, while other black students distributed a flyer listing incidences of theft and advice given to foreign students about socializing with blacks. By contrast, another white graduate noted that school officials looked at students' slides and paintings without knowing the race of the student. The school noted that 236 of its 1,312 undergraduate students were minorities, a higher percentage than comparable private professional art schools.On February 12, 1994, during a rally to raise money for the defendants' mounting legal bills, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan supported the three aldermen's right to seize the painting, calling it "an act of righteous indignation". Farrakhan referred to Washington as "a father figure for black people", and described the painting and subsequent lawsuit "a total disrespect for our feelings and our community". | [
"First Amendment",
"Chicago",
"Eugene Sawyer",
"Chicago Tribune",
"Operation PUSH",
"aldermen",
"the local public television station",
"Steve Cokely",
"New York Times",
"Harold Washington",
"Chicago Tonight",
"Louis Farrakhan",
"Nation of Islam"
]
|
|
15188_NT | Mirth & Girth | In the context of this artwork, explain the African-American community of the Responses. | Shortly after the incident, a black alderman told reporters that he believed the painting was the work of a Jewish artist. Nelson replied through a Chicago Tribune story that he "is not Jewish". The remark was made in part because racial tensions had already been elevated a week earlier after the firing of Steve Cokely, a mayoral aide, by African-American mayor and Harold Washington's successor Eugene Sawyer. Cokely had accused Jews of "engaging in an international conspiracy for world control". His firing caused a rift in segments of the black community, leading some to believe that Sawyer was also involved in the same conspiracy.In a New York Times article published on May 13, 1988, Alderman Streeter reiterated his stance regarding the removal of the painting, saying that he would have "gone to jail to get that painting down", calling it "an insult to a great man and an affront to blacks". On May 16, 1988, Streeter appeared on the local public television station news program Chicago Tonight. He reinforced that Nelson had abdicated his "responsibility to his constituency" to "do what is right". In the segment, he reaffirmed that he believed the aldermen had "a law, the law of common sense, the law of morality, the law of decency [that] transcends the First Amendment".
Operation PUSH, an organization that pursues social justice and civil rights, threatened to impose "sanctions" on the Art Institute unless the Art Institute acted to prevent offensive portraits from being shown by students or contributing artists in the future. Separately, the Illinois Alliance of Black Student Organizations called for racial parity with regards to faculty and student enrollment within the school. African-American students alleged that there was an underlying attitude of racism at the school, while other black students distributed a flyer listing incidences of theft and advice given to foreign students about socializing with blacks. By contrast, another white graduate noted that school officials looked at students' slides and paintings without knowing the race of the student. The school noted that 236 of its 1,312 undergraduate students were minorities, a higher percentage than comparable private professional art schools.On February 12, 1994, during a rally to raise money for the defendants' mounting legal bills, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan supported the three aldermen's right to seize the painting, calling it "an act of righteous indignation". Farrakhan referred to Washington as "a father figure for black people", and described the painting and subsequent lawsuit "a total disrespect for our feelings and our community". | [
"First Amendment",
"Chicago",
"Eugene Sawyer",
"Chicago Tribune",
"Operation PUSH",
"aldermen",
"the local public television station",
"Steve Cokely",
"New York Times",
"Harold Washington",
"Chicago Tonight",
"Louis Farrakhan",
"Nation of Islam"
]
|
|
15189_T | Mirth & Girth | Explore the Free speech advocates about the Responses of this artwork, Mirth & Girth. |
On May 12, 1988, representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) picked up the painting and returned it to Nelson. Jay Miller, another representative for the ACLU, described the incident as "vigilante stuff", noting that the action "was done in the name of one of the great civil libertarians of our time. Harold Washington had a 100 percent voting record in Congress and in the state Legislature on issues of civil liberties and civil rights." In 1984 Washington had supported the civil rights of sculptor John Sefick after Sefick had created a satirical statue of Washington. By comparison, former mayor Michael Bilandic had ordered a Sefick statue satirizing his handling of Chicago's crippling Blizzard of 1979 covered by a blanket, a decision that was later overturned in federal court.Students from the SAIC protested on Columbus Drive the next day, holding signs that asked drivers to "honk for free speech". Student leaders began to consult attorneys to file a lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department and the aldermen. Other groups of students planned a "be-in" at the Richard J. Daley Plaza, but it was canceled after the students learned other groups might cause a confrontation. Some students felt that the school had been a victim of racial politics, and that the incident would be used to censor the Art Institute.On Chicago Tonight, Daniel Polsby, a law professor at Northwestern University, cited federal statutes violated during the confiscation of the portrait. He then faulted Marshall Field's reluctance to defend the First Amendment, further comparing the seizure of Mirth & Girth to then-Arkansas governor Orval Faubus' refusal to abide by the First Amendment and allow minorities to enroll in Little Rock Central High School. According to Polsby, Faubus' rationale at the time was to preserve a delicate civil rights situation. Polsby called the aldermen's action "crushingly ironic and terribly sad". | [
"Columbus Drive",
"Richard J. Daley Plaza",
"American Civil Liberties Union",
"First Amendment",
"Northwestern University",
"Chicago",
"Chicago Police Department",
"Orval Faubus",
"John Sefick",
"Blizzard of 1979",
"aldermen",
"Free speech",
"Michael Bilandic",
"Little Rock Central High School",
"SAIC",
"be-in",
"Daniel Polsby",
"Harold Washington",
"Chicago Tonight"
]
|
|
15189_NT | Mirth & Girth | Explore the Free speech advocates about the Responses of this artwork. |
On May 12, 1988, representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) picked up the painting and returned it to Nelson. Jay Miller, another representative for the ACLU, described the incident as "vigilante stuff", noting that the action "was done in the name of one of the great civil libertarians of our time. Harold Washington had a 100 percent voting record in Congress and in the state Legislature on issues of civil liberties and civil rights." In 1984 Washington had supported the civil rights of sculptor John Sefick after Sefick had created a satirical statue of Washington. By comparison, former mayor Michael Bilandic had ordered a Sefick statue satirizing his handling of Chicago's crippling Blizzard of 1979 covered by a blanket, a decision that was later overturned in federal court.Students from the SAIC protested on Columbus Drive the next day, holding signs that asked drivers to "honk for free speech". Student leaders began to consult attorneys to file a lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department and the aldermen. Other groups of students planned a "be-in" at the Richard J. Daley Plaza, but it was canceled after the students learned other groups might cause a confrontation. Some students felt that the school had been a victim of racial politics, and that the incident would be used to censor the Art Institute.On Chicago Tonight, Daniel Polsby, a law professor at Northwestern University, cited federal statutes violated during the confiscation of the portrait. He then faulted Marshall Field's reluctance to defend the First Amendment, further comparing the seizure of Mirth & Girth to then-Arkansas governor Orval Faubus' refusal to abide by the First Amendment and allow minorities to enroll in Little Rock Central High School. According to Polsby, Faubus' rationale at the time was to preserve a delicate civil rights situation. Polsby called the aldermen's action "crushingly ironic and terribly sad". | [
"Columbus Drive",
"Richard J. Daley Plaza",
"American Civil Liberties Union",
"First Amendment",
"Northwestern University",
"Chicago",
"Chicago Police Department",
"Orval Faubus",
"John Sefick",
"Blizzard of 1979",
"aldermen",
"Free speech",
"Michael Bilandic",
"Little Rock Central High School",
"SAIC",
"be-in",
"Daniel Polsby",
"Harold Washington",
"Chicago Tonight"
]
|
|
15190_T | Mirth & Girth | In the context of Mirth & Girth, discuss the Reactions within the SAIC of the Responses. | At the SAIC, students' characterizations of the painting ranged from political caricature, to "whimsy", to a commercial success. One student noted that Nelson was "known nationally now, which is every artist's dream". Another student noted that "(a)rtists have to be responsible for what they make, and this guy is not being responsible". In a meeting with 100 students after the incident, Anthony Jones, then-president of the SAIC, assured the students that he stood behind their First Amendment rights. Regarding the painting, Jones said that the painting was in poor taste and should not have been displayed.Members of the Art Institute Board met the day after the incident and agreed not to display Mirth & Girth any further. Chairman Marshall Field also issued a formal apology for displaying the painting and agreed to consider demands that the school both hire more black administrators and accept more black students. Field also published the apology in each of the city's daily metropolitan newspapers. After the apology was issued, Polsby strongly criticized Field's refusal to more aggressively stand up for the students' First Amendment rights. | [
"First Amendment",
"SAIC"
]
|
|
15190_NT | Mirth & Girth | In the context of this artwork, discuss the Reactions within the SAIC of the Responses. | At the SAIC, students' characterizations of the painting ranged from political caricature, to "whimsy", to a commercial success. One student noted that Nelson was "known nationally now, which is every artist's dream". Another student noted that "(a)rtists have to be responsible for what they make, and this guy is not being responsible". In a meeting with 100 students after the incident, Anthony Jones, then-president of the SAIC, assured the students that he stood behind their First Amendment rights. Regarding the painting, Jones said that the painting was in poor taste and should not have been displayed.Members of the Art Institute Board met the day after the incident and agreed not to display Mirth & Girth any further. Chairman Marshall Field also issued a formal apology for displaying the painting and agreed to consider demands that the school both hire more black administrators and accept more black students. Field also published the apology in each of the city's daily metropolitan newspapers. After the apology was issued, Polsby strongly criticized Field's refusal to more aggressively stand up for the students' First Amendment rights. | [
"First Amendment",
"SAIC"
]
|
|
15191_T | Mirth & Girth | In Mirth & Girth, how is the Other reactions of the Responses elucidated? | Members of the Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago, which included leaders from mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic and Jewish organizations from the city, issued a statement that expressed "moral dismay" over the painting. They further added that the display of the painting showed "a lack of sensitivity which we could have expected from those who were responsible for its showing".As for the painting's critical reception, one local art reviewer mentioned that "the only thing [the SAIC] might have felt sheepish about was not having a staff that in four years could instill in Nelson a better grasp of figure painting". In a newspaper interview, Nelson responded that the criticism was "the one thing that did make me kind of angry. I don't think the painting was poorly executed, though it wasn't my favorite painting." In his book Arresting Images — Impolitic Art and Uncivil Actions, Stephen C. Dubin suggested that the painting represented a symbolic castration of Washington, reflecting more "traditional" reactions to African-Americans in positions of power.Nelson gave only a few interviews before leaving Chicago for the suburbs, and then Graceland to avoid the press. On the advice of his friends, Nelson stayed away from his graduation ceremony on May 14, 1988. He turned down a $15,000 (1988, $22,000 in 2008) offer for the painting, calling it a "grossly inflated" price. He also turned down a separate opportunity to appear on Phil Donahue's syndicated talk show, saying that he never watched the show and was genuinely uninterested in the offer. Nelson's views were expressed by Harvey Grossman, the legal director for the ACLU. Through Grossman, Nelson said he would not press for the returning of the painting, as it had fulfilled its purpose of "drawing attention to his 'iconoclastic' work". | [
"Chicago",
"syndicated talk show",
"SAIC",
"Phil Donahue",
"Graceland",
"iconoclastic"
]
|
|
15191_NT | Mirth & Girth | In this artwork, how is the Other reactions of the Responses elucidated? | Members of the Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago, which included leaders from mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic and Jewish organizations from the city, issued a statement that expressed "moral dismay" over the painting. They further added that the display of the painting showed "a lack of sensitivity which we could have expected from those who were responsible for its showing".As for the painting's critical reception, one local art reviewer mentioned that "the only thing [the SAIC] might have felt sheepish about was not having a staff that in four years could instill in Nelson a better grasp of figure painting". In a newspaper interview, Nelson responded that the criticism was "the one thing that did make me kind of angry. I don't think the painting was poorly executed, though it wasn't my favorite painting." In his book Arresting Images — Impolitic Art and Uncivil Actions, Stephen C. Dubin suggested that the painting represented a symbolic castration of Washington, reflecting more "traditional" reactions to African-Americans in positions of power.Nelson gave only a few interviews before leaving Chicago for the suburbs, and then Graceland to avoid the press. On the advice of his friends, Nelson stayed away from his graduation ceremony on May 14, 1988. He turned down a $15,000 (1988, $22,000 in 2008) offer for the painting, calling it a "grossly inflated" price. He also turned down a separate opportunity to appear on Phil Donahue's syndicated talk show, saying that he never watched the show and was genuinely uninterested in the offer. Nelson's views were expressed by Harvey Grossman, the legal director for the ACLU. Through Grossman, Nelson said he would not press for the returning of the painting, as it had fulfilled its purpose of "drawing attention to his 'iconoclastic' work". | [
"Chicago",
"syndicated talk show",
"SAIC",
"Phil Donahue",
"Graceland",
"iconoclastic"
]
|
|
15192_T | Mirth & Girth | Focus on Mirth & Girth and analyze the Nelson v. Streeter. | On June 23, 1988, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Nelson against the three aldermen who were seen on television handling the painting. It claimed the removal of the painting violated Nelson's First Amendment right to freedom of expression, Fourth Amendment right to protection from unreasonable seizures, and Fourteenth amendment right against being deprived of property without a hearing. The ACLU sought $100,000 (1988, equivalent to $247,000 in 2022) to compensate Nelson for damage to the painting, and to "punish" the aldermen and police for their actions.Ald. Robert Shaw (9th) called the suit "a slap in the face to the black community". Rush questioned the motive of the suit, as himself, Tillman and Streeter all were supporters of Alderman Timothy C. Evans (17th), a political rival of mayor Eugene Sawyer. Rush specifically called the suit "frivolous" and "impetuous", openly questioning whether the ACLU had filed the suit to enhance fundraising activities or for other political reasons.The City of Chicago refused in February 1990 to pay mounting legal costs for the aldermen. The aldermen argued that they were performing their official duties "in protecting the security of the city during the turmoil created by the exhibit" when they removed the painting. The city contended that the aldermen had taken the action as individuals. Nelson refused a $10,000 (1990, equivalent to $22,000 in 2022) settlement at the time.On August 11, 1992, U.S. District Judge George Lindberg dismissed the City of Chicago from the lawsuit, but ruled that Superintendent Martin must go to trial and that the three aldermen violated Nelson's civil rights. Lindberg supported the recommendations regarding that issue Magistrate Judge Elaine Bucklo's had made in March 1992. Tillman's lawyer, James Chapman, recommended to Tillman that an immediate appeal be filed in federal court. | [
"Magistrate Judge",
"First Amendment",
"Chicago",
"Eugene Sawyer",
"Timothy C. Evans",
"aldermen",
"Fourteenth amendment",
"Fourth Amendment"
]
|
|
15192_NT | Mirth & Girth | Focus on this artwork and analyze the Nelson v. Streeter. | On June 23, 1988, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Nelson against the three aldermen who were seen on television handling the painting. It claimed the removal of the painting violated Nelson's First Amendment right to freedom of expression, Fourth Amendment right to protection from unreasonable seizures, and Fourteenth amendment right against being deprived of property without a hearing. The ACLU sought $100,000 (1988, equivalent to $247,000 in 2022) to compensate Nelson for damage to the painting, and to "punish" the aldermen and police for their actions.Ald. Robert Shaw (9th) called the suit "a slap in the face to the black community". Rush questioned the motive of the suit, as himself, Tillman and Streeter all were supporters of Alderman Timothy C. Evans (17th), a political rival of mayor Eugene Sawyer. Rush specifically called the suit "frivolous" and "impetuous", openly questioning whether the ACLU had filed the suit to enhance fundraising activities or for other political reasons.The City of Chicago refused in February 1990 to pay mounting legal costs for the aldermen. The aldermen argued that they were performing their official duties "in protecting the security of the city during the turmoil created by the exhibit" when they removed the painting. The city contended that the aldermen had taken the action as individuals. Nelson refused a $10,000 (1990, equivalent to $22,000 in 2022) settlement at the time.On August 11, 1992, U.S. District Judge George Lindberg dismissed the City of Chicago from the lawsuit, but ruled that Superintendent Martin must go to trial and that the three aldermen violated Nelson's civil rights. Lindberg supported the recommendations regarding that issue Magistrate Judge Elaine Bucklo's had made in March 1992. Tillman's lawyer, James Chapman, recommended to Tillman that an immediate appeal be filed in federal court. | [
"Magistrate Judge",
"First Amendment",
"Chicago",
"Eugene Sawyer",
"Timothy C. Evans",
"aldermen",
"Fourteenth amendment",
"Fourth Amendment"
]
|
|
15193_T | Mirth & Girth | Describe the characteristics of the Appellate court in Mirth & Girth's Nelson v. Streeter. | In the appeal, decided February 1, 1994, judges Richard Posner, Frank H. Easterbrook, and Michael Stephen Kanne affirmed Lindberg's earlier decision. Writing for the court, Posner rejected claims of official immunity and said city officials had no right to enter private property and take "offensive" paintings off its walls. He also rejected the argument that removing paintings from walls was an official duty.Posner also rejected the argument that the defendants were removing the painting to save Chicago from racial riots that the continued showing of the painting might have started, and in which it might have been destroyed. He found that Tillman herself threatened to burn the painting on the spot, and that there was no mob. In addition, the court found that because Nelson had not intended to provoke a riot, the First Amendment could still be used to protect his speech.The appellate court also faulted the district judge for allowing "more than a year and a half elapsed before the filing and disposition of the motions for summary judgment". Posner noted in his opinion that "the governing principles are clear, the facts have been explored exhaustively, and the defendants should be aware that efforts to mount a last-ditch, no-holds-barred defense may simply increase their liability for the plaintiff's attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988." He then affirmed the district court's decision. | [
"First Amendment",
"Chicago",
"Frank H. Easterbrook",
"Richard Posner",
"Michael Stephen Kanne"
]
|
|
15193_NT | Mirth & Girth | Describe the characteristics of the Appellate court in this artwork's Nelson v. Streeter. | In the appeal, decided February 1, 1994, judges Richard Posner, Frank H. Easterbrook, and Michael Stephen Kanne affirmed Lindberg's earlier decision. Writing for the court, Posner rejected claims of official immunity and said city officials had no right to enter private property and take "offensive" paintings off its walls. He also rejected the argument that removing paintings from walls was an official duty.Posner also rejected the argument that the defendants were removing the painting to save Chicago from racial riots that the continued showing of the painting might have started, and in which it might have been destroyed. He found that Tillman herself threatened to burn the painting on the spot, and that there was no mob. In addition, the court found that because Nelson had not intended to provoke a riot, the First Amendment could still be used to protect his speech.The appellate court also faulted the district judge for allowing "more than a year and a half elapsed before the filing and disposition of the motions for summary judgment". Posner noted in his opinion that "the governing principles are clear, the facts have been explored exhaustively, and the defendants should be aware that efforts to mount a last-ditch, no-holds-barred defense may simply increase their liability for the plaintiff's attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988." He then affirmed the district court's decision. | [
"First Amendment",
"Chicago",
"Frank H. Easterbrook",
"Richard Posner",
"Michael Stephen Kanne"
]
|
|
15194_T | Mirth & Girth | In the context of Mirth & Girth, explore the Settlement and aftermath of the Nelson v. Streeter. | On September 20, 1994, the city and the ACLU reached a settlement. The ACLU agreed to drop claims against the city and Superintendent LeRoy Martin. In return, the city of Chicago agreed to pay Nelson and the ACLU $95,000 (1994, equivalent to $188,000 in 2022) for damage to the painting and to issue police procedures about what materials protected by the First Amendment may be seized. The elected officials also agreed not to appeal the district court's ruling. Left unresolved were the hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees owed to lawyers defending Tillman, Rush and Streeter; by September 1994, $200,000 (1994, equivalent to $395,000 in 2022) in fees were owed by Tillman alone. Earlier in the year, the City Council's Finance Committee voted against paying for the aldermen's legal fees. The vote split along racial lines, 12 to 8.Grossman stated that the relatively small settlement showed that Nelson had proceeded with the lawsuit "on a matter of principle". Tillman, however, called the settlement a "great victory", saying, "we didn't admit to anything, all the charges were dropped, we're not paying anything (in damages), and we preserve our rights to pursue efforts to have our legal fees paid". At the time the lawsuit was settled, Nelson did not issue any statements. The Chicago Tribune reported that he was employed as an advertising artist at an undisclosed firm; he continued to paint in his free time. As of 1994, the painting had not been sold, exhibited, or repaired after the incident. | [
"First Amendment",
"Chicago",
"Chicago Tribune",
"aldermen",
"City Council"
]
|
|
15194_NT | Mirth & Girth | In the context of this artwork, explore the Settlement and aftermath of the Nelson v. Streeter. | On September 20, 1994, the city and the ACLU reached a settlement. The ACLU agreed to drop claims against the city and Superintendent LeRoy Martin. In return, the city of Chicago agreed to pay Nelson and the ACLU $95,000 (1994, equivalent to $188,000 in 2022) for damage to the painting and to issue police procedures about what materials protected by the First Amendment may be seized. The elected officials also agreed not to appeal the district court's ruling. Left unresolved were the hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees owed to lawyers defending Tillman, Rush and Streeter; by September 1994, $200,000 (1994, equivalent to $395,000 in 2022) in fees were owed by Tillman alone. Earlier in the year, the City Council's Finance Committee voted against paying for the aldermen's legal fees. The vote split along racial lines, 12 to 8.Grossman stated that the relatively small settlement showed that Nelson had proceeded with the lawsuit "on a matter of principle". Tillman, however, called the settlement a "great victory", saying, "we didn't admit to anything, all the charges were dropped, we're not paying anything (in damages), and we preserve our rights to pursue efforts to have our legal fees paid". At the time the lawsuit was settled, Nelson did not issue any statements. The Chicago Tribune reported that he was employed as an advertising artist at an undisclosed firm; he continued to paint in his free time. As of 1994, the painting had not been sold, exhibited, or repaired after the incident. | [
"First Amendment",
"Chicago",
"Chicago Tribune",
"aldermen",
"City Council"
]
|
|
15195_T | Steamboats in the Port of Rouen | Focus on Steamboats in the Port of Rouen and explain the abstract. | Steamboats in the Port of Rouen is a late 19th-century painting by Camille Pissarro. Done in oil on canvas, the painting depicts shipping in the port city of Rouen, France. Pissarro painted the work from his room in the Hôtel de Paris, which overlooked the one of the city's quays. The painting is similar to Pissarro's Morning, An Overcast Day, Rouen, and both works are in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. | [
"Camille Pissarro",
"Rouen",
"Morning, An Overcast Day, Rouen",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art",
"France"
]
|
|
15195_NT | Steamboats in the Port of Rouen | Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract. | Steamboats in the Port of Rouen is a late 19th-century painting by Camille Pissarro. Done in oil on canvas, the painting depicts shipping in the port city of Rouen, France. Pissarro painted the work from his room in the Hôtel de Paris, which overlooked the one of the city's quays. The painting is similar to Pissarro's Morning, An Overcast Day, Rouen, and both works are in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. | [
"Camille Pissarro",
"Rouen",
"Morning, An Overcast Day, Rouen",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art",
"France"
]
|
|
15196_T | Cairns (sculpture) | Explore the abstract of this artwork, Cairns (sculpture). | Cairns is an outdoor 2008 public art installation by American artist Christine Bourdette, installed in the Old Town Chinatown neighborhood of Portland, Oregon, in the United States. | [
"Portland, Oregon",
"Old Town Chinatown",
"Christine Bourdette",
"Cairn"
]
|
|
15196_NT | Cairns (sculpture) | Explore the abstract of this artwork. | Cairns is an outdoor 2008 public art installation by American artist Christine Bourdette, installed in the Old Town Chinatown neighborhood of Portland, Oregon, in the United States. | [
"Portland, Oregon",
"Old Town Chinatown",
"Christine Bourdette",
"Cairn"
]
|
|
15197_T | Cairns (sculpture) | Focus on Cairns (sculpture) and discuss the Description. | Christine Bourdette's Cairns (2008) consists of a series of five stacked slate (or silver ledgestone) forms near Portland Union Station at the north end of the Transit Mall in Portland's Old Town Chinatown neighborhood. The stacks are installed at Northwest 6th Avenue and Northwest Glisan Street, and along Northwest 5th and 6th avenues between Glisan and Irving streets. They create a path to the MAX Light Rail stations Union Station / Northwest 6th & Hoyt Street and Union Station / Northwest 5th & Glisan Street.
Bourdette was inspired by cairns, or stacks of stones are used as landmarks for memorials and navigation. She has said of the sculpture: A progression of increments, marking departure and arrival, marking a path; these basic aspects of time and travel have governed my approach to the three Union Station sites. As I considered ways in which humans mark pathways, I thought of cairns, those man-made stacks of stones that mark hiking trails and which historically have served as landmarks for land and sea navigation, memorials, and commemorative markers. Travelers on cross-country trails traditionally add stones to cairns as they pass, resulting in animated and precarious stacks of rocks and pebbles. This evidence of human comings and goings, these reminders that others have followed the same path signify safety and reassurance out in the wilderness. In the urban wilderness, finding one's way through the various stages of hurry-up-and-wait are just as significant. These stand-alone works speak to the step-by-step marking of time, and incorporate varying degrees of elegance and playfulness. They are related to each other through this thematic underpinning and through the use of stone, but each responds to its site in its own way.
The sculptures measure 126 inches (3.2 m) x 69 inches (1.8 m) x 57 inches (1.4 m), 132 inches (3.4 m) x 73 inches (1.9 m) x 73 inches (1.9 m), 64 inches (1.6 m) x 28 inches (0.71 m) x 28 inches (0.71 m), 48 inches (1.2 m) x 32 inches (0.81 m) x 32 inches (0.81 m), 57 inches (1.4 m) x 23 inches (0.58 m) x 23 inches (0.58 m), and 88 inches (2.2 m) x 24 inches (0.61 m) x 24 inches (0.61 m), respectively. Cairns was funded by TriMet and is administered by the Regional Arts & Culture Council. | [
"Regional Arts & Culture Council",
"cairn",
"MAX Light Rail",
"Union Station / Northwest 6th & Hoyt Street and Union Station / Northwest 5th & Glisan Street",
"Portland Union Station",
"slate",
"TriMet",
"Transit Mall",
"Old Town Chinatown",
"Christine Bourdette",
"Cairn"
]
|
|
15197_NT | Cairns (sculpture) | Focus on this artwork and discuss the Description. | Christine Bourdette's Cairns (2008) consists of a series of five stacked slate (or silver ledgestone) forms near Portland Union Station at the north end of the Transit Mall in Portland's Old Town Chinatown neighborhood. The stacks are installed at Northwest 6th Avenue and Northwest Glisan Street, and along Northwest 5th and 6th avenues between Glisan and Irving streets. They create a path to the MAX Light Rail stations Union Station / Northwest 6th & Hoyt Street and Union Station / Northwest 5th & Glisan Street.
Bourdette was inspired by cairns, or stacks of stones are used as landmarks for memorials and navigation. She has said of the sculpture: A progression of increments, marking departure and arrival, marking a path; these basic aspects of time and travel have governed my approach to the three Union Station sites. As I considered ways in which humans mark pathways, I thought of cairns, those man-made stacks of stones that mark hiking trails and which historically have served as landmarks for land and sea navigation, memorials, and commemorative markers. Travelers on cross-country trails traditionally add stones to cairns as they pass, resulting in animated and precarious stacks of rocks and pebbles. This evidence of human comings and goings, these reminders that others have followed the same path signify safety and reassurance out in the wilderness. In the urban wilderness, finding one's way through the various stages of hurry-up-and-wait are just as significant. These stand-alone works speak to the step-by-step marking of time, and incorporate varying degrees of elegance and playfulness. They are related to each other through this thematic underpinning and through the use of stone, but each responds to its site in its own way.
The sculptures measure 126 inches (3.2 m) x 69 inches (1.8 m) x 57 inches (1.4 m), 132 inches (3.4 m) x 73 inches (1.9 m) x 73 inches (1.9 m), 64 inches (1.6 m) x 28 inches (0.71 m) x 28 inches (0.71 m), 48 inches (1.2 m) x 32 inches (0.81 m) x 32 inches (0.81 m), 57 inches (1.4 m) x 23 inches (0.58 m) x 23 inches (0.58 m), and 88 inches (2.2 m) x 24 inches (0.61 m) x 24 inches (0.61 m), respectively. Cairns was funded by TriMet and is administered by the Regional Arts & Culture Council. | [
"Regional Arts & Culture Council",
"cairn",
"MAX Light Rail",
"Union Station / Northwest 6th & Hoyt Street and Union Station / Northwest 5th & Glisan Street",
"Portland Union Station",
"slate",
"TriMet",
"Transit Mall",
"Old Town Chinatown",
"Christine Bourdette",
"Cairn"
]
|
|
15198_T | Still Life with Checked Tablecloth | How does Still Life with Checked Tablecloth elucidate its abstract? | Still Life with Checked Tablecloth (originally titled Le compotier) is an early 20th century painting by Spanish Cubist artist Juan Gris. Done in oil and graphite on canvas, the painting depicts a table set with grapes, a bottle of red wine, beer, a newspaper and guitar. In addition, the composite image formed from these various objects can be seen as Gris' take on a bull's head. The work is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. | [
"Juan Gris",
"Cubist",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art"
]
|
|
15198_NT | Still Life with Checked Tablecloth | How does this artwork elucidate its abstract? | Still Life with Checked Tablecloth (originally titled Le compotier) is an early 20th century painting by Spanish Cubist artist Juan Gris. Done in oil and graphite on canvas, the painting depicts a table set with grapes, a bottle of red wine, beer, a newspaper and guitar. In addition, the composite image formed from these various objects can be seen as Gris' take on a bull's head. The work is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. | [
"Juan Gris",
"Cubist",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art"
]
|
|
15199_T | Still Life with Checked Tablecloth | Focus on Still Life with Checked Tablecloth and analyze the Background. | Formerly in the collection of Léonce Rosenberg, Paris (no. 5114), the work was reproduced in Bulletin de "L'Effort Moderne" no. 16, in June 1925, titled Le compotier. The painting later formed part of the collection of Gottlieb Reber. It was reproduced in the French literary journal Cahiers d'art, Paris, in 1927, no. 4-5 (p. 172) titled Le compotier. Subsequently, the work was published in Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler's, Juan Gris, His Life and Work, London, 1947 (illustrated pl. 21), and is reproduced on page 195D of the Douglas Cooper, Juan Gris, Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. I, Paris, 1977, no. 127, p. 194. The works was first exhibited at the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Internationale Kunst Ausstellung, June – September 1926, no. 374.Kahnweiler wrote of work from this period: "Apparently Gris' ideal of architectural grandeur can only be realised with a static subject. But during the summer of 1915 he produced a series of pictures which are full of movement." Still Life with Checked Tablecloth was painted in Paris by Gris during the month of March, shortly after spending several months in the South of France following the onset of World War I. In a letter to Kahnweiler dated on 26 March 1915, Gris wrote of his evolution as a painter: "I think I have really made progress recently and that my pictures begin to have a unity which they have lacked till now. They are no longer those inventories of objects which used to depress me so much."Author and critic James Thrall Soby wrote of Nature morte à la nappe à carreaux in the catalogue for a 1958 exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, in which the painting was reproduced but not included in the exhibition: ...for sheer variety his work of 1915 is outstanding. The strange, lovely fluorescence of The Checked Tablecloth is a long cry from the splintered complexity of the Still Life. And in connection with the compositional arrangement of the former picture, mention should be made of Gris' passion for triangles. Lipchitz has told the writer that Gris revered the triangle because it is "so accurate and endless a form." He added that once when he and Gris found a triangular-shaped drinking glass, the latter explained: "You see we are influencing life at last." | [
"Cahiers d'art",
"Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler",
"Juan Gris",
"New York",
"Douglas Cooper",
"Museum of Modern Art",
"Gottlieb Reber",
"Léonce Rosenberg",
"Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden"
]
|
|
15199_NT | Still Life with Checked Tablecloth | Focus on this artwork and analyze the Background. | Formerly in the collection of Léonce Rosenberg, Paris (no. 5114), the work was reproduced in Bulletin de "L'Effort Moderne" no. 16, in June 1925, titled Le compotier. The painting later formed part of the collection of Gottlieb Reber. It was reproduced in the French literary journal Cahiers d'art, Paris, in 1927, no. 4-5 (p. 172) titled Le compotier. Subsequently, the work was published in Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler's, Juan Gris, His Life and Work, London, 1947 (illustrated pl. 21), and is reproduced on page 195D of the Douglas Cooper, Juan Gris, Catalogue raisonné de l’oeuvre peint, vol. I, Paris, 1977, no. 127, p. 194. The works was first exhibited at the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Internationale Kunst Ausstellung, June – September 1926, no. 374.Kahnweiler wrote of work from this period: "Apparently Gris' ideal of architectural grandeur can only be realised with a static subject. But during the summer of 1915 he produced a series of pictures which are full of movement." Still Life with Checked Tablecloth was painted in Paris by Gris during the month of March, shortly after spending several months in the South of France following the onset of World War I. In a letter to Kahnweiler dated on 26 March 1915, Gris wrote of his evolution as a painter: "I think I have really made progress recently and that my pictures begin to have a unity which they have lacked till now. They are no longer those inventories of objects which used to depress me so much."Author and critic James Thrall Soby wrote of Nature morte à la nappe à carreaux in the catalogue for a 1958 exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, in which the painting was reproduced but not included in the exhibition: ...for sheer variety his work of 1915 is outstanding. The strange, lovely fluorescence of The Checked Tablecloth is a long cry from the splintered complexity of the Still Life. And in connection with the compositional arrangement of the former picture, mention should be made of Gris' passion for triangles. Lipchitz has told the writer that Gris revered the triangle because it is "so accurate and endless a form." He added that once when he and Gris found a triangular-shaped drinking glass, the latter explained: "You see we are influencing life at last." | [
"Cahiers d'art",
"Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler",
"Juan Gris",
"New York",
"Douglas Cooper",
"Museum of Modern Art",
"Gottlieb Reber",
"Léonce Rosenberg",
"Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden"
]
|
|
15200_T | Still Life with Checked Tablecloth | In Still Life with Checked Tablecloth, how is the Art market discussed? | In 2014 Still Life with Checked Tablecloth was sold at Christie's London for £34.8 million ($57.1 million), attaining a world record price for a work by Juan Gris at a public auction. This surpassed previous records of $20.8 million for his 1915 work, Livre, pipe et verres, and $28.6 million for the 1913 painting, Violon et guitare. Still Life with Checked Tablecloth was purchased by the Metropolitan Museum of Art with funds donated by Leonard Lauder. | [
"Juan Gris",
"Leonard Lauder",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art"
]
|
|
15200_NT | Still Life with Checked Tablecloth | In this artwork, how is the Art market discussed? | In 2014 Still Life with Checked Tablecloth was sold at Christie's London for £34.8 million ($57.1 million), attaining a world record price for a work by Juan Gris at a public auction. This surpassed previous records of $20.8 million for his 1915 work, Livre, pipe et verres, and $28.6 million for the 1913 painting, Violon et guitare. Still Life with Checked Tablecloth was purchased by the Metropolitan Museum of Art with funds donated by Leonard Lauder. | [
"Juan Gris",
"Leonard Lauder",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art"
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.