ID
stringlengths 6
8
| title
stringlengths 3
136
| question
stringlengths 33
235
| answer
stringlengths 51
15.3k
| image_url
stringlengths 57
817
| entities
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
16101_T | Holy Family with a Female Saint (Mantegna) | Focus on Holy Family with a Female Saint (Mantegna) and explore the abstract. | The Holy Family with a Female Saint is a 1495–1505 tempera on canvas painting attributed to Andrea Mantegna - the lose of the original finish and re-painting means that the painting itself cannot be securely attributed to him, though the silverpoint under-drawing is definitely in the master's hand. To the left is saint Joseph and to the right is an unidentified female saint, possibly Mary Magdalene.It is now in the Museo di Castelvecchio in Verona, from which it was stolen on the evening of 19 November 2015 along with sixteen other works. They were found near Odessa in Ukraine on 6 May the following year, from which they were about to be sold on into Ukraine and Russia. They were returned to the museum later in 2016 | [
"Mary Magdalene",
"Odessa",
"saint Joseph",
"Ukraine",
"Verona",
"Andrea Mantegna",
"Museo di Castelvecchio"
] |
|
16101_NT | Holy Family with a Female Saint (Mantegna) | Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract. | The Holy Family with a Female Saint is a 1495–1505 tempera on canvas painting attributed to Andrea Mantegna - the lose of the original finish and re-painting means that the painting itself cannot be securely attributed to him, though the silverpoint under-drawing is definitely in the master's hand. To the left is saint Joseph and to the right is an unidentified female saint, possibly Mary Magdalene.It is now in the Museo di Castelvecchio in Verona, from which it was stolen on the evening of 19 November 2015 along with sixteen other works. They were found near Odessa in Ukraine on 6 May the following year, from which they were about to be sold on into Ukraine and Russia. They were returned to the museum later in 2016 | [
"Mary Magdalene",
"Odessa",
"saint Joseph",
"Ukraine",
"Verona",
"Andrea Mantegna",
"Museo di Castelvecchio"
] |
|
16102_T | Holy Family with a Female Saint (Mantegna) | Focus on Holy Family with a Female Saint (Mantegna) and explain the History. | Marco Boschini saw a Mantegna Holy Family in the sacristy of the Ospedale degli Incurabili in Venice in the 17th century, which was either this work or the Altman Madonna. | [
"Altman Madonna",
"Marco Boschini"
] |
|
16102_NT | Holy Family with a Female Saint (Mantegna) | Focus on this artwork and explain the History. | Marco Boschini saw a Mantegna Holy Family in the sacristy of the Ospedale degli Incurabili in Venice in the 17th century, which was either this work or the Altman Madonna. | [
"Altman Madonna",
"Marco Boschini"
] |
|
16103_T | No. 61 (Rust and Blue) | Explore the abstract of this artwork, No. 61 (Rust and Blue). | No. 61 (Rust and Blue) is a 1953 painting by the Russian-American Abstract expressionist artist Mark Rothko. The work was first exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art, New York in 1961 but is now in the collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles. Similar to Rothko's other works from this period, No. 61 consists of large expanses of color with dark shades. Rust and Blue was a part of the Color Field movement. Rust and Blue also uses layered coloring. Rothko described this as "inner light". Rothko painted in such a way that at times paint can be seen flowing upward across the surface. | [
"Russian-American",
"Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles",
"Color Field",
"Mark Rothko",
"Abstract expressionist",
"Los Angeles",
"Museum of Contemporary Art",
"Museum of Modern Art"
] |
|
16103_NT | No. 61 (Rust and Blue) | Explore the abstract of this artwork. | No. 61 (Rust and Blue) is a 1953 painting by the Russian-American Abstract expressionist artist Mark Rothko. The work was first exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art, New York in 1961 but is now in the collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles. Similar to Rothko's other works from this period, No. 61 consists of large expanses of color with dark shades. Rust and Blue was a part of the Color Field movement. Rust and Blue also uses layered coloring. Rothko described this as "inner light". Rothko painted in such a way that at times paint can be seen flowing upward across the surface. | [
"Russian-American",
"Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles",
"Color Field",
"Mark Rothko",
"Abstract expressionist",
"Los Angeles",
"Museum of Contemporary Art",
"Museum of Modern Art"
] |
|
16104_T | Glove Cycle | Focus on Glove Cycle and discuss the Sculpture. | Glove Cycle is a sculptural installation of 54 separate bronze sculptures of gloves located throughout Porter station. Individual gloves are located on a turnstile and between the up and down escalators. Small piles of gloves are located at the bottom of the escalators and on the inbound platform, while other gloves are embedded in the floor of both platforms as well as the mezzanine. The gloves are arranged, some in small vignettes, to have different stories and emotions connected to them. Richard Wolkomir of Smithsonian Magazine explains that the first gloves one approaches in the station are "a big glove giving birth to a little glove", and that "Some gloves have two thumbs, or only three fingers. One large glove extends a finger toward a smaller glove, like a caricature of Michelangelo's Jehovah transmitting life to Adam on the Sistine ceiling."Robert O. Boorstin from The Harvard Crimson adds that there are gloves "in piles, gripping rails, pushing imaginary buttons—as a constant image that the passenger follows from one point of the station to another". Mags Harries explains that the gloves she crafted "are anthropomorphic objects with many character possibilities and by their multiplication, take on a life form that might be analogous to the people movement in the subway." Robert O. Boorstin claims that this philosophy and explanation are "somewhat extravagant." | [
"bronze",
"Michelangelo",
"turnstile",
"The Harvard Crimson",
"Mags Harries",
"thumb",
"Sistine ceiling",
"Harvard Crimson",
"Porter station",
"Porter",
"escalator",
"Smithsonian Magazine"
] |
|
16104_NT | Glove Cycle | Focus on this artwork and discuss the Sculpture. | Glove Cycle is a sculptural installation of 54 separate bronze sculptures of gloves located throughout Porter station. Individual gloves are located on a turnstile and between the up and down escalators. Small piles of gloves are located at the bottom of the escalators and on the inbound platform, while other gloves are embedded in the floor of both platforms as well as the mezzanine. The gloves are arranged, some in small vignettes, to have different stories and emotions connected to them. Richard Wolkomir of Smithsonian Magazine explains that the first gloves one approaches in the station are "a big glove giving birth to a little glove", and that "Some gloves have two thumbs, or only three fingers. One large glove extends a finger toward a smaller glove, like a caricature of Michelangelo's Jehovah transmitting life to Adam on the Sistine ceiling."Robert O. Boorstin from The Harvard Crimson adds that there are gloves "in piles, gripping rails, pushing imaginary buttons—as a constant image that the passenger follows from one point of the station to another". Mags Harries explains that the gloves she crafted "are anthropomorphic objects with many character possibilities and by their multiplication, take on a life form that might be analogous to the people movement in the subway." Robert O. Boorstin claims that this philosophy and explanation are "somewhat extravagant." | [
"bronze",
"Michelangelo",
"turnstile",
"The Harvard Crimson",
"Mags Harries",
"thumb",
"Sistine ceiling",
"Harvard Crimson",
"Porter station",
"Porter",
"escalator",
"Smithsonian Magazine"
] |
|
16105_T | Glove Cycle | How does Glove Cycle elucidate its History? | Glove Cycle was created as a part of the MBTA and the Cambridge Arts Council's "Arts on the Line" program. This first of its kind program was devised to bring art into the MBTA's planned Northwest Extension of the Red Line subway stations in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and became a model for similar drives for public art across the country. This installation was one of 20 artworks created for this program, out of over 400 proposals submitted by artists for artworks spread out across five different newly created subway stations. The first 20 artworks, including this one, were completed with a total cost of $695,000 USD, or one-half of one percent of the total construction cost of the Red Line Northwest Extension. The cost of this particular sculpture was $30,000.Gloves was not the first theme that Harries considered for her subterranean artwork. Initially her concept revolved around bronze tree roots appearing to come through the walls and into the stations. This idea was turned down by the architects of Porter Station for bringing attention to the fact that the station is deep underground. Harries stated, "The whole philosophy of subway stations, it turns out, is to make them seem as un-underground as possible," something the tree roots idea would be the exact opposite of. The next theme she considered was to create a flock of sheep-shaped turnstiles. This concept fell to the wayside as the snow from a blizzard in Boston began to melt. Harries began to find lost gloves emerging from the snow. She said that, "They were wet, compacted, squashed—really beautiful!" These lost items gave her the inspiration for her new sculptural theme, gloves. | [
"USD",
"bronze",
"Red Line",
"turnstile",
"Arts on the Line",
"subway station",
"public art",
"Porter",
"Cambridge"
] |
|
16105_NT | Glove Cycle | How does this artwork elucidate its History? | Glove Cycle was created as a part of the MBTA and the Cambridge Arts Council's "Arts on the Line" program. This first of its kind program was devised to bring art into the MBTA's planned Northwest Extension of the Red Line subway stations in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and became a model for similar drives for public art across the country. This installation was one of 20 artworks created for this program, out of over 400 proposals submitted by artists for artworks spread out across five different newly created subway stations. The first 20 artworks, including this one, were completed with a total cost of $695,000 USD, or one-half of one percent of the total construction cost of the Red Line Northwest Extension. The cost of this particular sculpture was $30,000.Gloves was not the first theme that Harries considered for her subterranean artwork. Initially her concept revolved around bronze tree roots appearing to come through the walls and into the stations. This idea was turned down by the architects of Porter Station for bringing attention to the fact that the station is deep underground. Harries stated, "The whole philosophy of subway stations, it turns out, is to make them seem as un-underground as possible," something the tree roots idea would be the exact opposite of. The next theme she considered was to create a flock of sheep-shaped turnstiles. This concept fell to the wayside as the snow from a blizzard in Boston began to melt. Harries began to find lost gloves emerging from the snow. She said that, "They were wet, compacted, squashed—really beautiful!" These lost items gave her the inspiration for her new sculptural theme, gloves. | [
"USD",
"bronze",
"Red Line",
"turnstile",
"Arts on the Line",
"subway station",
"public art",
"Porter",
"Cambridge"
] |
|
16106_T | Bust of Jack Brickhouse | Focus on Bust of Jack Brickhouse and analyze the abstract. | An outdoor sculpture of Jack Brickhouse is installed along Michigan Avenue, near the Chicago River bridge, in Chicago, Illinois. The bust was originally dedicated in 2000, and renovated in 2009. | [
"Chicago River",
"Jack Brickhouse",
"Chicago",
"Michigan Avenue",
"Illinois"
] |
|
16106_NT | Bust of Jack Brickhouse | Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract. | An outdoor sculpture of Jack Brickhouse is installed along Michigan Avenue, near the Chicago River bridge, in Chicago, Illinois. The bust was originally dedicated in 2000, and renovated in 2009. | [
"Chicago River",
"Jack Brickhouse",
"Chicago",
"Michigan Avenue",
"Illinois"
] |
|
16107_T | Portrait of Francesco Giamberti | In Portrait of Francesco Giamberti, how is the abstract discussed? | Portrait Francesco Giamberti is an oil on panel painting by Piero di Cosimo, executed c. 1485, now in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. The background details show the influence of Hugo van der Goes.Its subject was a legnaioulo or furniture carver who worked for Cosimo the Elder and the Medici and also composed music for them, carving a musical score into the base of one of the pieces of furniture they commissioned from him. He probably also worked for the papacy. He also founded a major Tuscan family of architects and artists who assumed the name Sangallo, possibly after property they owned at the San Gallo gate of Florence - Giuliano da Sangallo and Antonio da Sangallo the Elder were his sons and Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, Bastiano da Sangallo and Francesco da Sangallo were his grandsons. It was Giuliano who commissioned Piero di Cosimo to produce a double portrait of himself and his father, probably using a death mask for the latter. | [
"Hugo van der Goes",
"Francesco da Sangallo",
"Florence",
"Antonio da Sangallo the Younger",
"Cosimo the Elder",
"Bastiano da Sangallo",
"San Gallo gate",
"Piero di Cosimo",
"Antonio da Sangallo the Elder",
"Rijksmuseum",
"Giuliano da Sangallo",
"Giamberti"
] |
|
16107_NT | Portrait of Francesco Giamberti | In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed? | Portrait Francesco Giamberti is an oil on panel painting by Piero di Cosimo, executed c. 1485, now in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. The background details show the influence of Hugo van der Goes.Its subject was a legnaioulo or furniture carver who worked for Cosimo the Elder and the Medici and also composed music for them, carving a musical score into the base of one of the pieces of furniture they commissioned from him. He probably also worked for the papacy. He also founded a major Tuscan family of architects and artists who assumed the name Sangallo, possibly after property they owned at the San Gallo gate of Florence - Giuliano da Sangallo and Antonio da Sangallo the Elder were his sons and Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, Bastiano da Sangallo and Francesco da Sangallo were his grandsons. It was Giuliano who commissioned Piero di Cosimo to produce a double portrait of himself and his father, probably using a death mask for the latter. | [
"Hugo van der Goes",
"Francesco da Sangallo",
"Florence",
"Antonio da Sangallo the Younger",
"Cosimo the Elder",
"Bastiano da Sangallo",
"San Gallo gate",
"Piero di Cosimo",
"Antonio da Sangallo the Elder",
"Rijksmuseum",
"Giuliano da Sangallo",
"Giamberti"
] |
|
16108_T | Angel, Still Groping | Focus on Angel, Still Groping and explore the abstract. | Angel, Still Groping is a watercolor on paper painting by Swiss German painter Paul Klee, from 1939. it is held at the Zentrum Paul Klee, in Berne. | [
"Berne",
"Zentrum Paul Klee",
"Paul Klee",
"Bern"
] |
|
16108_NT | Angel, Still Groping | Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract. | Angel, Still Groping is a watercolor on paper painting by Swiss German painter Paul Klee, from 1939. it is held at the Zentrum Paul Klee, in Berne. | [
"Berne",
"Zentrum Paul Klee",
"Paul Klee",
"Bern"
] |
|
16109_T | Salon des Refusés | Focus on Salon des Refusés and explain the abstract. | The Salon des Refusés, French for "exhibition of rejects" (French pronunciation: [salɔ̃ dɜ ʁəfyze]), is generally known as an exhibition of works rejected by the jury of the official Paris Salon, but the term is most famously used to refer to the Salon des Refusés of 1863.Today, by extension, salon des refusés refers to any exhibition of works rejected from a juried art show. | [
"Paris Salon",
" Salon",
"Paris"
] |
|
16109_NT | Salon des Refusés | Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract. | The Salon des Refusés, French for "exhibition of rejects" (French pronunciation: [salɔ̃ dɜ ʁəfyze]), is generally known as an exhibition of works rejected by the jury of the official Paris Salon, but the term is most famously used to refer to the Salon des Refusés of 1863.Today, by extension, salon des refusés refers to any exhibition of works rejected from a juried art show. | [
"Paris Salon",
" Salon",
"Paris"
] |
|
16110_T | Salon des Refusés | Explore the Background of the Salon of 1863 of this artwork, Salon des Refusés. | The Paris Salon, sponsored by the French government and the Academy of Fine Arts, took place annually, and was a exhibition of the best academic art. A medal from the Salon was assurance of a successful artistic career; winners were given official commissions by the French government and were sought after for portraits and private commissions. Since the 18th century, the paintings were classified by genre, following a hierarchy; history paintings were ranked first, followed by the portrait, the landscape, the "genre scene" and the still life. The jury, headed by the Comte de Nieuwerkerke, the head of the Academy of Fine Arts, was very conservative; near-photographic but idealized realism was expected.Much intrigue often went on to get acceptance, and to be given a good place in the galleries. In 1851, Gustave Courbet managed to get one painting into the Salon, Enterrement à Ornans, and in 1852 his Baigneuses was accepted, scandalizing critics and the public, who expected romanticized nudes in classical settings, but in 1855 the Salon refused all of Courbet's paintings. As early as the 1830s, Paris art galleries mounted small, private exhibitions of works rejected by the Salon jurors. Courbet was obliged to organize his own exhibit, called The Pavillon of Realism, at a private gallery. Private exhibits attracted far less attention from the press and patrons, and limited the access of the artists to a small public.
In 1863 the Salon jury refused two thirds of the paintings presented, including the works of Gustave Courbet, Édouard Manet, Camille Pissarro, Antoine Chintreuil, and Johan Jongkind. The rejected artists and their friends protested, and the protests reached Emperor Napoleon III. The Emperor's tastes in art were traditional; he commissioned and bought works by artists such as Alexandre Cabanel and Franz Xaver Winterhalter, but he was also sensitive to public opinion. His office issued a statement: "Numerous complaints have come to the Emperor on the subject of the works of art which were refused by the jury of the Exposition. His Majesty, wishing to let the public judge the legitimacy of these complaints, has decided that the works of art which were refused should be displayed in another part of the Palace of Industry."More than a thousand visitors a day visited the Salon des Refusés. The journalist Émile Zola reported that visitors pushed to get into the crowded galleries where the refused paintings were hung, and the rooms were full of the laughter of the spectators. Critics and the public ridiculed the refusés, which included such famous paintings as Édouard Manet's Déjeuner sur l'herbe and James McNeill Whistler's Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl. The critical attention also legitimized the emerging avant-garde in painting. The Impressionists exhibited their works outside the traditional Salon beginning in 1874. Subsequent Salons des Refusés were mounted in Paris in 1874, 1875, and 1886, by which time the popularity of the Paris Salon had declined for those who were more interested in Impressionism. | [
"Paris Salon",
"Alexandre Cabanel",
"Gustave Courbet",
"James McNeill Whistler",
"Napoleon III",
"Impressionists",
"Impressionism",
"Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl",
"Franz Xaver Winterhalter",
"Camille Pissarro",
"history painting",
"Émile Zola",
" Salon",
"Antoine Chintreuil",
"Academy of Fine Arts",
"Édouard Manet",
"Paris",
"Johan Jongkind",
"genre scene",
"Déjeuner sur l'herbe"
] |
|
16110_NT | Salon des Refusés | Explore the Background of the Salon of 1863 of this artwork. | The Paris Salon, sponsored by the French government and the Academy of Fine Arts, took place annually, and was a exhibition of the best academic art. A medal from the Salon was assurance of a successful artistic career; winners were given official commissions by the French government and were sought after for portraits and private commissions. Since the 18th century, the paintings were classified by genre, following a hierarchy; history paintings were ranked first, followed by the portrait, the landscape, the "genre scene" and the still life. The jury, headed by the Comte de Nieuwerkerke, the head of the Academy of Fine Arts, was very conservative; near-photographic but idealized realism was expected.Much intrigue often went on to get acceptance, and to be given a good place in the galleries. In 1851, Gustave Courbet managed to get one painting into the Salon, Enterrement à Ornans, and in 1852 his Baigneuses was accepted, scandalizing critics and the public, who expected romanticized nudes in classical settings, but in 1855 the Salon refused all of Courbet's paintings. As early as the 1830s, Paris art galleries mounted small, private exhibitions of works rejected by the Salon jurors. Courbet was obliged to organize his own exhibit, called The Pavillon of Realism, at a private gallery. Private exhibits attracted far less attention from the press and patrons, and limited the access of the artists to a small public.
In 1863 the Salon jury refused two thirds of the paintings presented, including the works of Gustave Courbet, Édouard Manet, Camille Pissarro, Antoine Chintreuil, and Johan Jongkind. The rejected artists and their friends protested, and the protests reached Emperor Napoleon III. The Emperor's tastes in art were traditional; he commissioned and bought works by artists such as Alexandre Cabanel and Franz Xaver Winterhalter, but he was also sensitive to public opinion. His office issued a statement: "Numerous complaints have come to the Emperor on the subject of the works of art which were refused by the jury of the Exposition. His Majesty, wishing to let the public judge the legitimacy of these complaints, has decided that the works of art which were refused should be displayed in another part of the Palace of Industry."More than a thousand visitors a day visited the Salon des Refusés. The journalist Émile Zola reported that visitors pushed to get into the crowded galleries where the refused paintings were hung, and the rooms were full of the laughter of the spectators. Critics and the public ridiculed the refusés, which included such famous paintings as Édouard Manet's Déjeuner sur l'herbe and James McNeill Whistler's Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl. The critical attention also legitimized the emerging avant-garde in painting. The Impressionists exhibited their works outside the traditional Salon beginning in 1874. Subsequent Salons des Refusés were mounted in Paris in 1874, 1875, and 1886, by which time the popularity of the Paris Salon had declined for those who were more interested in Impressionism. | [
"Paris Salon",
"Alexandre Cabanel",
"Gustave Courbet",
"James McNeill Whistler",
"Napoleon III",
"Impressionists",
"Impressionism",
"Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl",
"Franz Xaver Winterhalter",
"Camille Pissarro",
"history painting",
"Émile Zola",
" Salon",
"Antoine Chintreuil",
"Academy of Fine Arts",
"Édouard Manet",
"Paris",
"Johan Jongkind",
"genre scene",
"Déjeuner sur l'herbe"
] |
|
16111_T | Salon des Refusés | In Salon des Refusés, how is the Le déjeuner sur l'herbe of the Works in the exhibition elucidated? |
Rejected by the Salon jury of 1863, Manet seized the opportunity to exhibit Déjeuner sur l'herbe and two other paintings in the 1863 Salon des Refusés. Déjeuner sur l'herbe depicts the juxtaposition of a female nude and a scantily dressed female bather in the background, on a picnic with two fully dressed men in a rural setting. The painting sparked public notoriety and stirred up controversy and has remained controversial, even to this day. There is a discussion of it, from this point of view, in Proust's Remembrance of Things Past.
One interpretation of the work is that it depicts the rampant prostitution in the Bois de Boulogne, a large park at the western outskirts of Paris, at the time. This prostitution was common knowledge in Paris, but was considered a taboo subject unsuitable for a painting.Émile Zola comments about Déjeuner sur l'herbe:The Luncheon on the Grass is the greatest work of Édouard Manet, one in which he realizes the dream of all painters: to place figures of natural grandeur in a landscape. We know the power with which he vanquished this difficulty. There are some leaves, some tree trunks, and, in the background, a river in which a chemise-wearing woman bathes; in the foreground, two young men are seated across from a second woman who has just exited the water and who dries her naked skin in the open air. This nude woman has scandalized the public, who see only her in the canvas. My God! What indecency: a woman without the slightest covering between two clothed men! That has never been seen. And this belief is a gross error, for in the Louvre there are more than fifty paintings in which are found mixes of persons clothed and nude. But no one goes to the Louvre to be scandalized. The crowd has kept itself moreover from judging The Luncheon on the Grass like a veritable work of art should be judged; they see in it only some people who are having a picnic, finishing bathing, and they believed that the artist had placed an obscene intent in the disposition of the subject, while the artist had simply sought to obtain vibrant oppositions and a straightforward audience. Painters, especially Édouard Manet, who is an analytic painter, do not have this preoccupation with the subject which torments the crowd above all; the subject, for them, is merely a pretext to paint, while for the crowd, the subject alone exists. Thus, assuredly, the nude woman of The Luncheon on the Grass is only there to furnish the artist the occasion to paint a bit of flesh. That which must be seen in the painting is not a luncheon on the grass; it is the entire landscape, with its vigors and its finesses, with its foregrounds so large, so solid, and its backgrounds of a light delicateness; it is this firm modeled flesh under great spots of light, these tissues supple and strong, and particularly this delicious silhouette of a woman wearing a chemise who makes, in the background, an adorable dapple of white in the milieu of green leaves. It is, in short, this vast ensemble, full of atmosphere, this corner of nature rendered with a simplicity so just, all of this admirable page in which an artist has placed all the particular and rare elements which are in him.
Émile Zola incorporated a fictionalized account of the 1863 scandal in his novel L'Œuvre (The Masterpiece) (1886). | [
"Proust",
"Bois de Boulogne",
"Louvre",
"L'Œuvre",
"Émile Zola",
" Salon",
"Remembrance of Things Past",
"Édouard Manet",
"Paris",
"female nude",
"Déjeuner sur l'herbe"
] |
|
16111_NT | Salon des Refusés | In this artwork, how is the Le déjeuner sur l'herbe of the Works in the exhibition elucidated? |
Rejected by the Salon jury of 1863, Manet seized the opportunity to exhibit Déjeuner sur l'herbe and two other paintings in the 1863 Salon des Refusés. Déjeuner sur l'herbe depicts the juxtaposition of a female nude and a scantily dressed female bather in the background, on a picnic with two fully dressed men in a rural setting. The painting sparked public notoriety and stirred up controversy and has remained controversial, even to this day. There is a discussion of it, from this point of view, in Proust's Remembrance of Things Past.
One interpretation of the work is that it depicts the rampant prostitution in the Bois de Boulogne, a large park at the western outskirts of Paris, at the time. This prostitution was common knowledge in Paris, but was considered a taboo subject unsuitable for a painting.Émile Zola comments about Déjeuner sur l'herbe:The Luncheon on the Grass is the greatest work of Édouard Manet, one in which he realizes the dream of all painters: to place figures of natural grandeur in a landscape. We know the power with which he vanquished this difficulty. There are some leaves, some tree trunks, and, in the background, a river in which a chemise-wearing woman bathes; in the foreground, two young men are seated across from a second woman who has just exited the water and who dries her naked skin in the open air. This nude woman has scandalized the public, who see only her in the canvas. My God! What indecency: a woman without the slightest covering between two clothed men! That has never been seen. And this belief is a gross error, for in the Louvre there are more than fifty paintings in which are found mixes of persons clothed and nude. But no one goes to the Louvre to be scandalized. The crowd has kept itself moreover from judging The Luncheon on the Grass like a veritable work of art should be judged; they see in it only some people who are having a picnic, finishing bathing, and they believed that the artist had placed an obscene intent in the disposition of the subject, while the artist had simply sought to obtain vibrant oppositions and a straightforward audience. Painters, especially Édouard Manet, who is an analytic painter, do not have this preoccupation with the subject which torments the crowd above all; the subject, for them, is merely a pretext to paint, while for the crowd, the subject alone exists. Thus, assuredly, the nude woman of The Luncheon on the Grass is only there to furnish the artist the occasion to paint a bit of flesh. That which must be seen in the painting is not a luncheon on the grass; it is the entire landscape, with its vigors and its finesses, with its foregrounds so large, so solid, and its backgrounds of a light delicateness; it is this firm modeled flesh under great spots of light, these tissues supple and strong, and particularly this delicious silhouette of a woman wearing a chemise who makes, in the background, an adorable dapple of white in the milieu of green leaves. It is, in short, this vast ensemble, full of atmosphere, this corner of nature rendered with a simplicity so just, all of this admirable page in which an artist has placed all the particular and rare elements which are in him.
Émile Zola incorporated a fictionalized account of the 1863 scandal in his novel L'Œuvre (The Masterpiece) (1886). | [
"Proust",
"Bois de Boulogne",
"Louvre",
"L'Œuvre",
"Émile Zola",
" Salon",
"Remembrance of Things Past",
"Édouard Manet",
"Paris",
"female nude",
"Déjeuner sur l'herbe"
] |
|
16112_T | Salon des Refusés | In the context of Salon des Refusés, analyze the Symphony in White no 1 of the Works in the exhibition. |
In 1861, after returning to Paris for a time, James Abbott McNeill Whistler painted his first famous work, Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl. This portrait of his mistress and business manager Joanna Hiffernan was created as a simple study in white; however, others saw it differently. The critic Jules-Antoine Castagnary thought the painting an allegory of a new bride's lost innocence. Others linked it to Wilkie Collins's The Woman in White, a popular novel of the time, or various other literary sources. In England, some considered it a painting in the Pre-Raphaelite manner. In the painting, Hiffernan holds a lily in her left hand and stands upon a wolf skin rug (interpreted by some to represent masculinity and lust) with the wolf's head staring menacingly at the viewer.
Countering criticism by traditionalists, Whistler's supporters insisted that the painting was "an apparition with a spiritual content" and that it epitomized his theory that art should be concerned essentially with the arrangement of colors in harmony, not with a literal portrayal of the natural world.Whistler started working on The White Girl shortly after December 3, 1861, with the intention of submitting it to the prestigious annual exhibition of the Royal Academy. In spite of bouts of illness, he finished the painting by April. The white paint Whistler used contained lead, and his work on the seven-foot-high canvas had given the artist a dose of lead poisoning. The portrait was refused for exhibition at the conservative Royal Academy in London. Whistler then submitted the painting to the Paris Salon of 1863, where it was also rejected. The public was able to see the painting exhibited with other rejected works, in the Salon des Refusés. The Salon des Refusés was an event sanctioned by Emperor Napoleon III, to appease the large number of artists who joined forces to protest the harsh jury decisions in 1863 Of the over 5,000 paintings submitted in 1863, 2,217 were rejected.
In a letter to George du Maurier in early 1862 Whistler wrote of the painting:... a woman in a beautiful white cambric dress, standing against a window which filters the light through a transparent white muslin curtain – but the figure receives a strong light from the right and therefore the picture, barring the red hair, is one gorgeous mass of brilliant white.
Whistler submitted the painting to the Academy, but according to Joanna Hiffernan, he expected it to be rejected. The previous year, in 1861, another painting had caused a minor scandal. Edwin Henry Landseer's The Shrew Tamed showed a horse with a woman resting on the ground nearby. The model was named as Ann Gilbert, a noted equestrienne of the period, however it was soon rumored that it was actually Catherine Walters, the notorious London courtesan. Whistler's painting was reminiscent enough of Landseer's that the judges were wary of admitting it. White Girl was submitted to the Academy along with three etchings, all three of which were accepted, while the painting was not. Whistler exhibited it at the small Berners Street Gallery in London instead. The next year, Whistler tried to have the painting exhibited at the Salon in Paris – the official art exhibition of the Académie des Beaux-Arts – but it was rejected there as well. Instead, it was accepted at the alternative Salon des Refusés – the "exhibition of rejects" that opened on May 15, two weeks after the official Salon.Although Whistler's painting was widely noticed, he was upstaged by Manet's more shocking painting Le déjeuner sur l'herbe. The controversy surrounding the paintings was described in Émile Zola's novel L'Œuvre (1886). The reception Whistler's painting received was mostly favourable, however, and largely vindicated him after the rejection he had experienced both in London and in Paris. The painting was greatly admired by his colleagues and friends Manet, the painter Gustave Courbet and the poet Charles Baudelaire. The art critic Théophile Thoré-Bürger saw it in the tradition of Goya and Velázquez. There were, however, those who were less favourable; certain French critics saw the English Pre-Raphaelite trend as somewhat eccentric. | [
"Paris Salon",
"annual exhibition",
"Académie des Beaux-Arts",
"Gustave Courbet",
"Edwin Henry Landseer",
"Napoleon III",
"Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl",
"Goya",
"Jules-Antoine Castagnary",
"Charles Baudelaire",
"Joanna Hiffernan",
"courtesan",
"Wilkie Collins",
"L'Œuvre",
"Émile Zola",
" Salon",
"Paris",
"James Abbott McNeill Whistler",
"Royal Academy",
"Velázquez",
"The Woman in White",
"Catherine Walters",
"George du Maurier",
"Pre-Raphaelite",
"Théophile Thoré-Bürger"
] |
|
16112_NT | Salon des Refusés | In the context of this artwork, analyze the Symphony in White no 1 of the Works in the exhibition. |
In 1861, after returning to Paris for a time, James Abbott McNeill Whistler painted his first famous work, Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl. This portrait of his mistress and business manager Joanna Hiffernan was created as a simple study in white; however, others saw it differently. The critic Jules-Antoine Castagnary thought the painting an allegory of a new bride's lost innocence. Others linked it to Wilkie Collins's The Woman in White, a popular novel of the time, or various other literary sources. In England, some considered it a painting in the Pre-Raphaelite manner. In the painting, Hiffernan holds a lily in her left hand and stands upon a wolf skin rug (interpreted by some to represent masculinity and lust) with the wolf's head staring menacingly at the viewer.
Countering criticism by traditionalists, Whistler's supporters insisted that the painting was "an apparition with a spiritual content" and that it epitomized his theory that art should be concerned essentially with the arrangement of colors in harmony, not with a literal portrayal of the natural world.Whistler started working on The White Girl shortly after December 3, 1861, with the intention of submitting it to the prestigious annual exhibition of the Royal Academy. In spite of bouts of illness, he finished the painting by April. The white paint Whistler used contained lead, and his work on the seven-foot-high canvas had given the artist a dose of lead poisoning. The portrait was refused for exhibition at the conservative Royal Academy in London. Whistler then submitted the painting to the Paris Salon of 1863, where it was also rejected. The public was able to see the painting exhibited with other rejected works, in the Salon des Refusés. The Salon des Refusés was an event sanctioned by Emperor Napoleon III, to appease the large number of artists who joined forces to protest the harsh jury decisions in 1863 Of the over 5,000 paintings submitted in 1863, 2,217 were rejected.
In a letter to George du Maurier in early 1862 Whistler wrote of the painting:... a woman in a beautiful white cambric dress, standing against a window which filters the light through a transparent white muslin curtain – but the figure receives a strong light from the right and therefore the picture, barring the red hair, is one gorgeous mass of brilliant white.
Whistler submitted the painting to the Academy, but according to Joanna Hiffernan, he expected it to be rejected. The previous year, in 1861, another painting had caused a minor scandal. Edwin Henry Landseer's The Shrew Tamed showed a horse with a woman resting on the ground nearby. The model was named as Ann Gilbert, a noted equestrienne of the period, however it was soon rumored that it was actually Catherine Walters, the notorious London courtesan. Whistler's painting was reminiscent enough of Landseer's that the judges were wary of admitting it. White Girl was submitted to the Academy along with three etchings, all three of which were accepted, while the painting was not. Whistler exhibited it at the small Berners Street Gallery in London instead. The next year, Whistler tried to have the painting exhibited at the Salon in Paris – the official art exhibition of the Académie des Beaux-Arts – but it was rejected there as well. Instead, it was accepted at the alternative Salon des Refusés – the "exhibition of rejects" that opened on May 15, two weeks after the official Salon.Although Whistler's painting was widely noticed, he was upstaged by Manet's more shocking painting Le déjeuner sur l'herbe. The controversy surrounding the paintings was described in Émile Zola's novel L'Œuvre (1886). The reception Whistler's painting received was mostly favourable, however, and largely vindicated him after the rejection he had experienced both in London and in Paris. The painting was greatly admired by his colleagues and friends Manet, the painter Gustave Courbet and the poet Charles Baudelaire. The art critic Théophile Thoré-Bürger saw it in the tradition of Goya and Velázquez. There were, however, those who were less favourable; certain French critics saw the English Pre-Raphaelite trend as somewhat eccentric. | [
"Paris Salon",
"annual exhibition",
"Académie des Beaux-Arts",
"Gustave Courbet",
"Edwin Henry Landseer",
"Napoleon III",
"Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl",
"Goya",
"Jules-Antoine Castagnary",
"Charles Baudelaire",
"Joanna Hiffernan",
"courtesan",
"Wilkie Collins",
"L'Œuvre",
"Émile Zola",
" Salon",
"Paris",
"James Abbott McNeill Whistler",
"Royal Academy",
"Velázquez",
"The Woman in White",
"Catherine Walters",
"George du Maurier",
"Pre-Raphaelite",
"Théophile Thoré-Bürger"
] |
|
16113_T | Uppspretta | In Uppspretta, how is the abstract discussed? | Uppspretta is the name of a Toyist artwork situated in the Icelandic town of Keflavík. In 2013, a neglected water tower being nine meters in height and thirty-six meters in circumference, was transformed into an object of art. The painting shows the story of a puffin named Uppspretta.This largest artistic wall painting of Iceland was officially opened by mayor Árni Sigfússon of Reykjanesbær on 6 September 2013. It is situated in a popular recreation area of Keflavík. | [
"Toyist",
"Keflavík",
"water tower",
"Iceland",
"Reykjanesbær",
"puffin"
] |
|
16113_NT | Uppspretta | In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed? | Uppspretta is the name of a Toyist artwork situated in the Icelandic town of Keflavík. In 2013, a neglected water tower being nine meters in height and thirty-six meters in circumference, was transformed into an object of art. The painting shows the story of a puffin named Uppspretta.This largest artistic wall painting of Iceland was officially opened by mayor Árni Sigfússon of Reykjanesbær on 6 September 2013. It is situated in a popular recreation area of Keflavík. | [
"Toyist",
"Keflavík",
"water tower",
"Iceland",
"Reykjanesbær",
"puffin"
] |
|
16114_T | Uppspretta | Focus on Uppspretta and explore the Project. | The transformation of the tower into an artwork was actuated by an earlier work of the Toyists, namely De Stip (The Dot) in Emmen, Netherlands, when a gas storage container of 22 meters high was repainted into a work of art. This Icelandic project was financed partially by the municipality of Reykjanesbær, through sponsorship and crowdfunding. Because of this project, the Toyists were also asked by a hotel in Keflavík, to paint its facade and a dining room in the same style.The project started on 24 July 2013, and was completed after seven weeks. Eleven Toyists from five different countries were involved. During the activities, Iceland had its worst weather conditions since the summer of 1923. Plastic could not be used as a protection material, because it is impermeable to air. The strong winds blew apart the plastic, revealing the artwork before the project was finished. For that reason, coffee bags were used in order to be able to complete the project. Two hundred of them were sewn together and wrapped around the tower. | [
"Toyist",
"Keflavík",
"Iceland",
"Reykjanesbær",
"Emmen, Netherlands",
"crowdfunding",
"Emmen",
"gas storage container",
"Netherlands",
"Toyists"
] |
|
16114_NT | Uppspretta | Focus on this artwork and explore the Project. | The transformation of the tower into an artwork was actuated by an earlier work of the Toyists, namely De Stip (The Dot) in Emmen, Netherlands, when a gas storage container of 22 meters high was repainted into a work of art. This Icelandic project was financed partially by the municipality of Reykjanesbær, through sponsorship and crowdfunding. Because of this project, the Toyists were also asked by a hotel in Keflavík, to paint its facade and a dining room in the same style.The project started on 24 July 2013, and was completed after seven weeks. Eleven Toyists from five different countries were involved. During the activities, Iceland had its worst weather conditions since the summer of 1923. Plastic could not be used as a protection material, because it is impermeable to air. The strong winds blew apart the plastic, revealing the artwork before the project was finished. For that reason, coffee bags were used in order to be able to complete the project. Two hundred of them were sewn together and wrapped around the tower. | [
"Toyist",
"Keflavík",
"Iceland",
"Reykjanesbær",
"Emmen, Netherlands",
"crowdfunding",
"Emmen",
"gas storage container",
"Netherlands",
"Toyists"
] |
|
16115_T | Uppspretta | Focus on Uppspretta and explain the Theme and design. | Whilst toyism is to be classified under figurative art, one cannot subdivide it further into one particular style. A common denominator of the artworks of the Toyists is that they seem recognizable as well as unworldly. The theme of this artwork is a story that resembles a legend. It was invented by the art group for this occasion. In comparison, other works of this group are based on anecdotes, fantasies and philosophies too.Sólfar (English: The Sun Voyager) is a work of the Icelandic artist Jón Gunnar Árnason and was the inspiration for the dream boat that brought Uppspretta back to Iceland. Árnason intended his creation to be a dream boat which travels to undiscovered areas. There's a dream boat in the story of the toyists as well, that brings the main character Uppspretta back to Iceland IJsland. In the images at the right the inspiration of the Sólfar of Árnason can be observed in the painting of the toyists.Another inspiration came from Iceland, like a geyser; Uppspretta means source. The vikings, who are believed by the artists to be the first inhabitants of Iceland, appear in the form of Freyja, the goddess of love from the Norse mythology. There's also an image of a viking ship. | [
"Toyist",
"Iceland",
"Jón Gunnar Árnason",
"viking ship",
"figurative art",
"The Sun Voyager",
"Sólfar",
"toyism",
"viking",
"geyser",
"Norse mythology",
"Freyja",
"Toyists"
] |
|
16115_NT | Uppspretta | Focus on this artwork and explain the Theme and design. | Whilst toyism is to be classified under figurative art, one cannot subdivide it further into one particular style. A common denominator of the artworks of the Toyists is that they seem recognizable as well as unworldly. The theme of this artwork is a story that resembles a legend. It was invented by the art group for this occasion. In comparison, other works of this group are based on anecdotes, fantasies and philosophies too.Sólfar (English: The Sun Voyager) is a work of the Icelandic artist Jón Gunnar Árnason and was the inspiration for the dream boat that brought Uppspretta back to Iceland. Árnason intended his creation to be a dream boat which travels to undiscovered areas. There's a dream boat in the story of the toyists as well, that brings the main character Uppspretta back to Iceland IJsland. In the images at the right the inspiration of the Sólfar of Árnason can be observed in the painting of the toyists.Another inspiration came from Iceland, like a geyser; Uppspretta means source. The vikings, who are believed by the artists to be the first inhabitants of Iceland, appear in the form of Freyja, the goddess of love from the Norse mythology. There's also an image of a viking ship. | [
"Toyist",
"Iceland",
"Jón Gunnar Árnason",
"viking ship",
"figurative art",
"The Sun Voyager",
"Sólfar",
"toyism",
"viking",
"geyser",
"Norse mythology",
"Freyja",
"Toyists"
] |
|
16116_T | Uppspretta | Explore the The story behind of this artwork, Uppspretta. | The main character of this story is a puffin named Uppspretta, a curious bird that wanted to discover the world. On his search, he read many books on the history of Iceland. When he discovered that its first citizens came from Norway, he decided to go and find his female puffin there. His parents had warned him that he was not capable of flying above land, but he ignored their warning, flew over land, and fell to earth.However, he did not land in Norway, but to the south in the Netherlands. There he was found by a man that took care of him. At the man’s home Uppspretta fell asleep and dreamed about people and music. In his dreams a ship came into sight that took him aboard, travelled over the seas, and subsequently through the air to Keflavík. When he arrived at home, he married a female puffin from Norway and became the leader of all puffins on Iceland. | [
"Keflavík",
"Iceland",
"puffin",
"Netherlands",
"Norway"
] |
|
16116_NT | Uppspretta | Explore the The story behind of this artwork. | The main character of this story is a puffin named Uppspretta, a curious bird that wanted to discover the world. On his search, he read many books on the history of Iceland. When he discovered that its first citizens came from Norway, he decided to go and find his female puffin there. His parents had warned him that he was not capable of flying above land, but he ignored their warning, flew over land, and fell to earth.However, he did not land in Norway, but to the south in the Netherlands. There he was found by a man that took care of him. At the man’s home Uppspretta fell asleep and dreamed about people and music. In his dreams a ship came into sight that took him aboard, travelled over the seas, and subsequently through the air to Keflavík. When he arrived at home, he married a female puffin from Norway and became the leader of all puffins on Iceland. | [
"Keflavík",
"Iceland",
"puffin",
"Netherlands",
"Norway"
] |
|
16117_T | Madonna of Veveri | Focus on Madonna of Veveri and discuss the abstract. | The Veveri Madonna, also called the Madonna of Veveri (Czech: Madona z Veveří, German: Madonna von Eichhorn ), is an tempera painting by the unknown moravian, bohemian (or probably italian) (active in Bohemian lands) artist generally called Master of Vyšší Brod. The altarpiece was commissioned after 1344 by Margrave John Henry of Luxembourg for the romanesque church of Assumption of Our Lady, In the neighborhood of royal Veveří castle in Brno, Moravia, Czech Republic. Exhibited in Diocesan Museum in Brno.
The panel was one of the first Madonnas painted by the artist. Albert Kutal a Czech scholar called it "a truly rare and extraordinary work". | [
"Assumption of Our Lady",
"John Henry of Luxembourg",
"tempera",
"Brno",
"Moravia",
"Czech Republic",
"Bohemian lands",
"Master of Vyšší Brod",
"royal Veveří castle",
"Albert Kutal"
] |
|
16117_NT | Madonna of Veveri | Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract. | The Veveri Madonna, also called the Madonna of Veveri (Czech: Madona z Veveří, German: Madonna von Eichhorn ), is an tempera painting by the unknown moravian, bohemian (or probably italian) (active in Bohemian lands) artist generally called Master of Vyšší Brod. The altarpiece was commissioned after 1344 by Margrave John Henry of Luxembourg for the romanesque church of Assumption of Our Lady, In the neighborhood of royal Veveří castle in Brno, Moravia, Czech Republic. Exhibited in Diocesan Museum in Brno.
The panel was one of the first Madonnas painted by the artist. Albert Kutal a Czech scholar called it "a truly rare and extraordinary work". | [
"Assumption of Our Lady",
"John Henry of Luxembourg",
"tempera",
"Brno",
"Moravia",
"Czech Republic",
"Bohemian lands",
"Master of Vyšší Brod",
"royal Veveří castle",
"Albert Kutal"
] |
|
16118_T | Madonna of Veveri | How does Madonna of Veveri elucidate its Composition? | The painting is in tempera on pine wood panel, canvas-covered with gently pastiglia stucco relief decoration and of additional gold metal slices, measures 79,5 cm by 62,5 cm. Madonna, Mary is seen half-figure with the Child in her lap, holding the Christ Child. The latter's left hand is touching his mother's, while under the right hand holds a bird – goldfinch, (because of the thistle seeds the goldfinch often eats, in Christian symbolism the goldfinch is associated with Christ's Passion and his crown of thorns). The Virgin Mary wears double crown on uncovered loose hair, without a veil. Some Byzantine-Italian traces notwithstanding, the painting shows a further step in the assimilation of Italian influences, which are adapted in an individually and stylistically balanced manner. | [
"pastiglia",
"tempera",
"Christ Child",
"Italian",
"bird",
"stucco",
"Christ's Passion",
"Christian symbolism",
"Byzantine",
"additional gold metal slices",
"pine wood",
"goldfinch"
] |
|
16118_NT | Madonna of Veveri | How does this artwork elucidate its Composition? | The painting is in tempera on pine wood panel, canvas-covered with gently pastiglia stucco relief decoration and of additional gold metal slices, measures 79,5 cm by 62,5 cm. Madonna, Mary is seen half-figure with the Child in her lap, holding the Christ Child. The latter's left hand is touching his mother's, while under the right hand holds a bird – goldfinch, (because of the thistle seeds the goldfinch often eats, in Christian symbolism the goldfinch is associated with Christ's Passion and his crown of thorns). The Virgin Mary wears double crown on uncovered loose hair, without a veil. Some Byzantine-Italian traces notwithstanding, the painting shows a further step in the assimilation of Italian influences, which are adapted in an individually and stylistically balanced manner. | [
"pastiglia",
"tempera",
"Christ Child",
"Italian",
"bird",
"stucco",
"Christ's Passion",
"Christian symbolism",
"Byzantine",
"additional gold metal slices",
"pine wood",
"goldfinch"
] |
|
16119_T | Madonna of Veveri | Focus on Madonna of Veveri and analyze the Painting materials. | Pigment analysis of Master of Vyšší Brod's masterpiece reveals the usual pigments of the high gothic period such as ferric oxide mixed with orpiment in the red drapery on top of the painting, natural ultramarine mixed with lead white in the blue robe of Madonna (inside). | [
"ferric oxide",
"natural ultramarine",
"Master of Vyšší Brod"
] |
|
16119_NT | Madonna of Veveri | Focus on this artwork and analyze the Painting materials. | Pigment analysis of Master of Vyšší Brod's masterpiece reveals the usual pigments of the high gothic period such as ferric oxide mixed with orpiment in the red drapery on top of the painting, natural ultramarine mixed with lead white in the blue robe of Madonna (inside). | [
"ferric oxide",
"natural ultramarine",
"Master of Vyšší Brod"
] |
|
16120_T | Madonna of Veveri | In Madonna of Veveri, how is the Exhibited discussed? | Brno 7. 10 1935 – 31. 3. 1936, Gotické umění na Moravě a ve Slezsku (The Gothic Art in Moravia and Silesia), Galerie Moravského zemského muzea
Prague 1939, Výstava restaurované madony (The restored Madonna´s), National Gallery in Prague
Paris 1957, L´art ancien en Tchecoslovaquie, Musée des arts décoratifs, Louvre
Brussels 1966, Les Primitifs de Bohême, Palais des Beaux-arts de Bruxelles
Rotterdam 8. 7. – 11. 9. 1966, De Boheemse Primitiven: Gotische kunst in Tsjechoslowakije, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen
Cologne 1987 Schöne Madonnen, Schnütgen Museum
New York 20. 9.2005 – 3. 2. 2006, Medieval Bohemian Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Prague 1940 – 6. 3. 2016, Stálá výstava Středověké umění v Čechách a střední Evropa 1200–1550, Národní galerie Praha
Olomouc 13. 2. – 11. 5. 2014, Gotické Madony na lvu - Splendor et Virtus Reginae Coeli, Arcidiecézní muzeum Olomouc
Brno 7. 3. 2016 – stil, Vita Christi, Diocesan museum Brno | [
"Diocesan museum Brno",
"Vita Christi",
"Schnütgen Museum",
"Galerie Moravského zemského muzea",
"Palais des Beaux-arts de Bruxelles",
"Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen",
"Musée des arts décoratifs",
"Brno",
"The Metropolitan Museum of Art",
"Středověké umění v Čechách a střední Evropa 1200–1550",
"Moravia",
"Louvre",
"National Gallery in Prague",
"Arcidiecézní muzeum Olomouc",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art"
] |
|
16120_NT | Madonna of Veveri | In this artwork, how is the Exhibited discussed? | Brno 7. 10 1935 – 31. 3. 1936, Gotické umění na Moravě a ve Slezsku (The Gothic Art in Moravia and Silesia), Galerie Moravského zemského muzea
Prague 1939, Výstava restaurované madony (The restored Madonna´s), National Gallery in Prague
Paris 1957, L´art ancien en Tchecoslovaquie, Musée des arts décoratifs, Louvre
Brussels 1966, Les Primitifs de Bohême, Palais des Beaux-arts de Bruxelles
Rotterdam 8. 7. – 11. 9. 1966, De Boheemse Primitiven: Gotische kunst in Tsjechoslowakije, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen
Cologne 1987 Schöne Madonnen, Schnütgen Museum
New York 20. 9.2005 – 3. 2. 2006, Medieval Bohemian Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Prague 1940 – 6. 3. 2016, Stálá výstava Středověké umění v Čechách a střední Evropa 1200–1550, Národní galerie Praha
Olomouc 13. 2. – 11. 5. 2014, Gotické Madony na lvu - Splendor et Virtus Reginae Coeli, Arcidiecézní muzeum Olomouc
Brno 7. 3. 2016 – stil, Vita Christi, Diocesan museum Brno | [
"Diocesan museum Brno",
"Vita Christi",
"Schnütgen Museum",
"Galerie Moravského zemského muzea",
"Palais des Beaux-arts de Bruxelles",
"Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen",
"Musée des arts décoratifs",
"Brno",
"The Metropolitan Museum of Art",
"Středověké umění v Čechách a střední Evropa 1200–1550",
"Moravia",
"Louvre",
"National Gallery in Prague",
"Arcidiecézní muzeum Olomouc",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art"
] |
|
16121_T | Lorelei Fountain | Focus on Lorelei Fountain and explore the abstract. | The Lorelei Fountain, also known as the Heinrich Heine Memorial, is a monument located on East 161st Street in the Concourse section of the Bronx, New York City, near the Bronx County Courthouse. It was designed by German sculptor Ernst Herter and created in 1896 out of Italian white marble in Laas, South Tyrol. The fountain was unveiled at its current location in 1899 and is dedicated to German poet and writer Heinrich Heine.
Heine had once written a poem devoted to the Lorelei, a feminine water spirit much like a mermaid that is associated with the Lorelei rock in St. Goarshausen, Germany. The monument was originally to be placed in Heine's hometown of Düsseldorf, but antisemitism and nationalist propaganda in the German Empire precluded its planned completion on Heine's 100th birthday in 1897. | [
"St. Goarshausen",
"Laas, South Tyrol",
"nationalist",
"Bronx County Courthouse",
"Germany",
"Concourse",
"Ernst Herter",
"antisemitism",
"marble",
"Lorelei Fountain",
"Düsseldorf",
"the Bronx",
"New York City",
"German Empire",
"propaganda",
"East 161st Street",
"Lorelei",
"Heinrich Heine",
"mermaid",
"white marble"
] |
|
16121_NT | Lorelei Fountain | Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract. | The Lorelei Fountain, also known as the Heinrich Heine Memorial, is a monument located on East 161st Street in the Concourse section of the Bronx, New York City, near the Bronx County Courthouse. It was designed by German sculptor Ernst Herter and created in 1896 out of Italian white marble in Laas, South Tyrol. The fountain was unveiled at its current location in 1899 and is dedicated to German poet and writer Heinrich Heine.
Heine had once written a poem devoted to the Lorelei, a feminine water spirit much like a mermaid that is associated with the Lorelei rock in St. Goarshausen, Germany. The monument was originally to be placed in Heine's hometown of Düsseldorf, but antisemitism and nationalist propaganda in the German Empire precluded its planned completion on Heine's 100th birthday in 1897. | [
"St. Goarshausen",
"Laas, South Tyrol",
"nationalist",
"Bronx County Courthouse",
"Germany",
"Concourse",
"Ernst Herter",
"antisemitism",
"marble",
"Lorelei Fountain",
"Düsseldorf",
"the Bronx",
"New York City",
"German Empire",
"propaganda",
"East 161st Street",
"Lorelei",
"Heinrich Heine",
"mermaid",
"white marble"
] |
|
16122_T | Lorelei Fountain | Focus on Lorelei Fountain and explain the Design and location. | Above the fountain bowl situated in Joyce Kilmer Park, bounded by the Grand Concourse, Walton Avenue, 164th Street, and 161st Street, a life-size figure of Lorelei rises, supported on a base; the monument stands at the southern end of the Joyce Kilmer Park and is near 161st Street and the Grand Concourse, across from the Bronx County Courthouse. Three mermaids sit in the fountain bowl resting at the base, which is supported by three volutes. Located on the front side of the base, between two volutes, is a relief of a profile portrait of Heine. Below that is the signature of the poet. The figure to the left of the relief, symbolizing poetry, sits to the right of the figure symbolizing satire; on the back is a figure signifying melancholy. Between the three figures are three dolphin heads. In addition to the Heine-portrait, there is a depiction of a naked boy with dunce-cap pointing his pen at a dragon, symbolizing humor. On a third relief, a sphinx hugs "a naked young man in the kiss of death".The Lorelei is dressed, according to Herter's biographer Brigitte Hüfler, in a non-contemporary garb. In her cleavage, she wears a necklace, and her embroidered jacket is pulled over the hips.
The figure symbolizing poetry is the only one of the three figures that faces the relief of Heine. It also faces towards a rose, which is supposed to express a particularly intimate relationship between poetry and Heine. From the right of the Heine-relief is the figure of satire, which turns her upper body towards Heine. In the back of the monument is positioned the "melancholy". The hair of the figure is long and unadorned, and she looks down sadly.The reliefs on the barrel bridge the space between the auxiliary figures and the Lorelei. The Sphinx is holding a naked young man and gives him probably the kiss of death, because the Riddle of the Sphinx has not been resolved. The humorous relief signifying killing a dragon could be interpreted as a matter of prejudice and public opinion. Heine's relief is embraced with a palm and a spruce twig. | [
"Bronx County Courthouse",
"Concourse",
"right",
"the Bronx",
"poetry",
"relief",
"melancholy",
"the Riddle of the Sphinx",
"dolphin",
"Lorelei",
"volute",
"satire",
"left",
"Grand Concourse",
"mermaid",
"sphinx"
] |
|
16122_NT | Lorelei Fountain | Focus on this artwork and explain the Design and location. | Above the fountain bowl situated in Joyce Kilmer Park, bounded by the Grand Concourse, Walton Avenue, 164th Street, and 161st Street, a life-size figure of Lorelei rises, supported on a base; the monument stands at the southern end of the Joyce Kilmer Park and is near 161st Street and the Grand Concourse, across from the Bronx County Courthouse. Three mermaids sit in the fountain bowl resting at the base, which is supported by three volutes. Located on the front side of the base, between two volutes, is a relief of a profile portrait of Heine. Below that is the signature of the poet. The figure to the left of the relief, symbolizing poetry, sits to the right of the figure symbolizing satire; on the back is a figure signifying melancholy. Between the three figures are three dolphin heads. In addition to the Heine-portrait, there is a depiction of a naked boy with dunce-cap pointing his pen at a dragon, symbolizing humor. On a third relief, a sphinx hugs "a naked young man in the kiss of death".The Lorelei is dressed, according to Herter's biographer Brigitte Hüfler, in a non-contemporary garb. In her cleavage, she wears a necklace, and her embroidered jacket is pulled over the hips.
The figure symbolizing poetry is the only one of the three figures that faces the relief of Heine. It also faces towards a rose, which is supposed to express a particularly intimate relationship between poetry and Heine. From the right of the Heine-relief is the figure of satire, which turns her upper body towards Heine. In the back of the monument is positioned the "melancholy". The hair of the figure is long and unadorned, and she looks down sadly.The reliefs on the barrel bridge the space between the auxiliary figures and the Lorelei. The Sphinx is holding a naked young man and gives him probably the kiss of death, because the Riddle of the Sphinx has not been resolved. The humorous relief signifying killing a dragon could be interpreted as a matter of prejudice and public opinion. Heine's relief is embraced with a palm and a spruce twig. | [
"Bronx County Courthouse",
"Concourse",
"right",
"the Bronx",
"poetry",
"relief",
"melancholy",
"the Riddle of the Sphinx",
"dolphin",
"Lorelei",
"volute",
"satire",
"left",
"Grand Concourse",
"mermaid",
"sphinx"
] |
|
16123_T | Lorelei Fountain | In the context of Lorelei Fountain, discuss the Origin of the History. | In the autumn of 1887, a committee for the establishment of a Heine Memorial was formed in Düsseldorf. The aim of the initiative was to unveil the monument to the 100th birthday of the poet, in 1897. The Munich-based poet Paul Heyse participated in a call to the committee, and, among other things, wrote to the Düsseldorf Gazette on November 2, 1887 in Düsseldorf Gazette. Following Düsseldorf's lead, other German cities formed committees to support the project. Even in New York there was interest in the project. The Austro-Hungarian Empress and Heine admirer, Elisabeth, also joined the Düsseldorf committee, and sent 50,000 marks toward the construction of the monument under the condition that the Berlin sculptor Ernst Herter would build it. In December 1887, Herter provided some designs for the monument.
On March 6, 1888, the Düsseldorf City Council decided to build a Heine monument at a tie of eleven to eleven votes, including the vote of the Mayor Heinrich Ernst Lindemann, who was also a member of the Memorial Committee. The city council was thus as divided as the German public, since the announcement of the monument plans sparked fierce debate. At the time of the vote, Herter already had a first plan for the monument, in that it was to contain a canopy. Since the Empress did not like this design, in May 1888 two further proposals came about: one depicting Heine sitting on a pedestal, the other with the current Lorelei fountain. The designs were submitted on June 30, 1888. While Elisabeth preferred the Heine-figure, Düsseldorf preferred the Lorelei Fountain.Opposition to the monument formed almost immediately after the plans were released in the autumn of 1887. That year, two pamphlets were published, directed against Heine. In addition, several writers and newspapers wrote pieces defaming Heine. However, among some German journalists and writers, Heine was still popular and his plan was still supported.By January 1889, the Empress withdrew her support. The project was thus temporarily shelved because public donations netted only 15,000 marks. However, since Herter had estimated a cost of 32 to 40,000 marks to build the monument, the artist now began to collect donations for the monument in its own right, but his efforts were unsuccessful. Important supporters also resigned from the Düsseldorf Memorial Committee, including Paul Heyse and Mayor Lindemann. Due to limited funding, the committee decided to grant Herter the contract for another draft. In December 1892, the Committee and sculptor signed a contract for the pedestal. | [
"Elisabeth",
"Paul Heyse",
"Ernst Herter",
"right",
"Lorelei Fountain",
"Düsseldorf",
"Heinrich Ernst Lindemann",
"Lorelei"
] |
|
16123_NT | Lorelei Fountain | In the context of this artwork, discuss the Origin of the History. | In the autumn of 1887, a committee for the establishment of a Heine Memorial was formed in Düsseldorf. The aim of the initiative was to unveil the monument to the 100th birthday of the poet, in 1897. The Munich-based poet Paul Heyse participated in a call to the committee, and, among other things, wrote to the Düsseldorf Gazette on November 2, 1887 in Düsseldorf Gazette. Following Düsseldorf's lead, other German cities formed committees to support the project. Even in New York there was interest in the project. The Austro-Hungarian Empress and Heine admirer, Elisabeth, also joined the Düsseldorf committee, and sent 50,000 marks toward the construction of the monument under the condition that the Berlin sculptor Ernst Herter would build it. In December 1887, Herter provided some designs for the monument.
On March 6, 1888, the Düsseldorf City Council decided to build a Heine monument at a tie of eleven to eleven votes, including the vote of the Mayor Heinrich Ernst Lindemann, who was also a member of the Memorial Committee. The city council was thus as divided as the German public, since the announcement of the monument plans sparked fierce debate. At the time of the vote, Herter already had a first plan for the monument, in that it was to contain a canopy. Since the Empress did not like this design, in May 1888 two further proposals came about: one depicting Heine sitting on a pedestal, the other with the current Lorelei fountain. The designs were submitted on June 30, 1888. While Elisabeth preferred the Heine-figure, Düsseldorf preferred the Lorelei Fountain.Opposition to the monument formed almost immediately after the plans were released in the autumn of 1887. That year, two pamphlets were published, directed against Heine. In addition, several writers and newspapers wrote pieces defaming Heine. However, among some German journalists and writers, Heine was still popular and his plan was still supported.By January 1889, the Empress withdrew her support. The project was thus temporarily shelved because public donations netted only 15,000 marks. However, since Herter had estimated a cost of 32 to 40,000 marks to build the monument, the artist now began to collect donations for the monument in its own right, but his efforts were unsuccessful. Important supporters also resigned from the Düsseldorf Memorial Committee, including Paul Heyse and Mayor Lindemann. Due to limited funding, the committee decided to grant Herter the contract for another draft. In December 1892, the Committee and sculptor signed a contract for the pedestal. | [
"Elisabeth",
"Paul Heyse",
"Ernst Herter",
"right",
"Lorelei Fountain",
"Düsseldorf",
"Heinrich Ernst Lindemann",
"Lorelei"
] |
|
16124_T | Lorelei Fountain | In Lorelei Fountain, how is the Initial placement attempts of the History elucidated? | After Düsseldorf's initial acceptance of the fountain in March 1888, the Committee announced on January 5, 1893 that the monument would be completed in 1895. On January 24, 1893, however, the project's construction permit was withdrawn since it was not covered by city laws, and also because of prevailing antisemitism in the German Empire at the time. The committee filed a lawsuit against the city for barring construction. Despite the setback in Düsseldorf, the cities of Frankfurt and Mainz (and Mayor of Mainz, Georg Oechsner, in particular) expressed interest. On July 10, 1893, the Mainz City Council authorized the erection of the monument, but the plan encountered strong opposition when Oeschner was ousted from his post. Newly-elected Mainz City Council members ultimately rejected the monument by a large majority on October 31, 1894. | [
"Frankfurt",
"antisemitism",
"Düsseldorf",
"German Empire",
"Georg Oechsner",
"Mainz"
] |
|
16124_NT | Lorelei Fountain | In this artwork, how is the Initial placement attempts of the History elucidated? | After Düsseldorf's initial acceptance of the fountain in March 1888, the Committee announced on January 5, 1893 that the monument would be completed in 1895. On January 24, 1893, however, the project's construction permit was withdrawn since it was not covered by city laws, and also because of prevailing antisemitism in the German Empire at the time. The committee filed a lawsuit against the city for barring construction. Despite the setback in Düsseldorf, the cities of Frankfurt and Mainz (and Mayor of Mainz, Georg Oechsner, in particular) expressed interest. On July 10, 1893, the Mainz City Council authorized the erection of the monument, but the plan encountered strong opposition when Oeschner was ousted from his post. Newly-elected Mainz City Council members ultimately rejected the monument by a large majority on October 31, 1894. | [
"Frankfurt",
"antisemitism",
"Düsseldorf",
"German Empire",
"Georg Oechsner",
"Mainz"
] |
|
16125_T | Lorelei Fountain | In the context of Lorelei Fountain, analyze the Installation in New York City of the History. | After the monument failed to find a home within Germany, locations abroad were considered. By April 14, 1893, a German-American singing group called the Arion Society of New York had expressed support for its installation in the city. That same year, the Heine Memorial Association was formed by community members of Little Germany (including Carl Schurz and George Ehret) to advocate for the statue. Despite early setbacks due to the Panic of 1893, fundraising efforts to pool 100,000 German gold marks for the project eventually culminated in an event known as the Heine Memorial Fair held at the Lenox Lyceum on November 24, 1895.While the monument enjoyed public support, the New York City Board of Parks rejected the project. Parks commissioners reportedly asked the government of Düsseldorf whether the monument had been refused in the latter only for political, and not also for artistic, reasons. The board also consulted with the National Sculpture Society, which called Heine monument's design "dry, weak and unconventional". The fountain was challenged not just on aesthetics, but also the Heine Association's desire to have it erected at the prominent Grand Army Plaza entrance to Central Park (at the corner of 5th Avenue and 59th Street). Just two years earlier, a monument to Chester A. Arthur had also been rejected at the same location. The New York Times described the monument as an "example of academic mediocrity, worthy of erection, but not worthy of erection as our chief municipal ornament".With such clear opposition to the project being sited in Grand Army Plaza, alternate locations were considered, including Brooklyn, Queens, and even Baltimore. On March 10, 1896, members of Tammany Hall ignored the Parks Commissioners' ruling on the project and requested approval from the New York City Board of Aldermen without specifying a precise location. By this point, at least two other private sites were offered by prominent members of New York's German-American community: one at William Steinway's Bowery Bay Beach park, and another at Starin's Glen Island park. At the suggestion of New York Republican party, the state created an art commission on March 4, 1896, which ultimately decided to place the monument in the Bronx. It was unveiled on July 8, 1899, at East 164th Street and Grand Concourse in the Bronx, to a crowd of 4,000 to 6,000 people, with Herter in attendance. | [
"Starin's Glen Island",
"Baltimore",
"William Steinway",
"Panic of 1893",
"Lenox Lyceum",
"Grand Army Plaza",
"Carl Schurz",
"Tammany Hall",
"Germany",
"Concourse",
"Bowery Bay Beach",
"Little Germany",
"German gold mark",
"Queens",
"Brooklyn",
"Arion Society of New York",
"Düsseldorf",
"New York Republican party",
"the Bronx",
"William Steinway's",
"New York City",
"Chester A. Arthur",
"National Sculpture Society",
"Central Park",
"German gold marks",
"The New York Times",
"Grand Concourse",
"New York City Board of Parks",
"New York City Board of Aldermen"
] |
|
16125_NT | Lorelei Fountain | In the context of this artwork, analyze the Installation in New York City of the History. | After the monument failed to find a home within Germany, locations abroad were considered. By April 14, 1893, a German-American singing group called the Arion Society of New York had expressed support for its installation in the city. That same year, the Heine Memorial Association was formed by community members of Little Germany (including Carl Schurz and George Ehret) to advocate for the statue. Despite early setbacks due to the Panic of 1893, fundraising efforts to pool 100,000 German gold marks for the project eventually culminated in an event known as the Heine Memorial Fair held at the Lenox Lyceum on November 24, 1895.While the monument enjoyed public support, the New York City Board of Parks rejected the project. Parks commissioners reportedly asked the government of Düsseldorf whether the monument had been refused in the latter only for political, and not also for artistic, reasons. The board also consulted with the National Sculpture Society, which called Heine monument's design "dry, weak and unconventional". The fountain was challenged not just on aesthetics, but also the Heine Association's desire to have it erected at the prominent Grand Army Plaza entrance to Central Park (at the corner of 5th Avenue and 59th Street). Just two years earlier, a monument to Chester A. Arthur had also been rejected at the same location. The New York Times described the monument as an "example of academic mediocrity, worthy of erection, but not worthy of erection as our chief municipal ornament".With such clear opposition to the project being sited in Grand Army Plaza, alternate locations were considered, including Brooklyn, Queens, and even Baltimore. On March 10, 1896, members of Tammany Hall ignored the Parks Commissioners' ruling on the project and requested approval from the New York City Board of Aldermen without specifying a precise location. By this point, at least two other private sites were offered by prominent members of New York's German-American community: one at William Steinway's Bowery Bay Beach park, and another at Starin's Glen Island park. At the suggestion of New York Republican party, the state created an art commission on March 4, 1896, which ultimately decided to place the monument in the Bronx. It was unveiled on July 8, 1899, at East 164th Street and Grand Concourse in the Bronx, to a crowd of 4,000 to 6,000 people, with Herter in attendance. | [
"Starin's Glen Island",
"Baltimore",
"William Steinway",
"Panic of 1893",
"Lenox Lyceum",
"Grand Army Plaza",
"Carl Schurz",
"Tammany Hall",
"Germany",
"Concourse",
"Bowery Bay Beach",
"Little Germany",
"German gold mark",
"Queens",
"Brooklyn",
"Arion Society of New York",
"Düsseldorf",
"New York Republican party",
"the Bronx",
"William Steinway's",
"New York City",
"Chester A. Arthur",
"National Sculpture Society",
"Central Park",
"German gold marks",
"The New York Times",
"Grand Concourse",
"New York City Board of Parks",
"New York City Board of Aldermen"
] |
|
16126_T | Lorelei Fountain | Describe the characteristics of the Vandalism and rehabilitation in Lorelei Fountain's History. | The monument was, from the start, the subject of frequent abuse and vandalism; although the monument was guarded by police, in 1900, the mermaids' arms were cut off. Women of the Christian Association of Abstinence described the monument as "indecent" in a court case in February 1900; other sources considered the monument as a "pornographic spectacle". In 1940, the fountain was moved to the northern end of the park and partially repaired In the following decades, the vandalism subsided, but later, the heads of the female characters were cut off again, the monument sprayed all over with graffiti. In the 1970s, the fountain was considered the statue in New York most affected by vandalism and destruction.
Plans to completely restore and move the monument back to its original position were formed in 1987. The Municipal Art Society of New York launched an "Adopt a Monument" program, which rehabilitated about 20 monuments. However, because of the initially estimated cost of $275,000, the renewal was delayed. A visit to former North Rhine-Westphalia Prime Minister Johannes Rau in September 1989 netted a 50,000 mark donation; later, $700,000 was raised through private donations. The fountain was reopened on July 8, 1999 at East 161st Street and the Grand Concourse, three blocks from its original location. | [
"North Rhine-Westphalia",
"Concourse",
"Municipal Art Society of New York",
"East 161st Street",
"Municipal Art Society",
"Grand Concourse",
"graffiti",
"mermaid",
"Johannes Rau"
] |
|
16126_NT | Lorelei Fountain | Describe the characteristics of the Vandalism and rehabilitation in this artwork's History. | The monument was, from the start, the subject of frequent abuse and vandalism; although the monument was guarded by police, in 1900, the mermaids' arms were cut off. Women of the Christian Association of Abstinence described the monument as "indecent" in a court case in February 1900; other sources considered the monument as a "pornographic spectacle". In 1940, the fountain was moved to the northern end of the park and partially repaired In the following decades, the vandalism subsided, but later, the heads of the female characters were cut off again, the monument sprayed all over with graffiti. In the 1970s, the fountain was considered the statue in New York most affected by vandalism and destruction.
Plans to completely restore and move the monument back to its original position were formed in 1987. The Municipal Art Society of New York launched an "Adopt a Monument" program, which rehabilitated about 20 monuments. However, because of the initially estimated cost of $275,000, the renewal was delayed. A visit to former North Rhine-Westphalia Prime Minister Johannes Rau in September 1989 netted a 50,000 mark donation; later, $700,000 was raised through private donations. The fountain was reopened on July 8, 1999 at East 161st Street and the Grand Concourse, three blocks from its original location. | [
"North Rhine-Westphalia",
"Concourse",
"Municipal Art Society of New York",
"East 161st Street",
"Municipal Art Society",
"Grand Concourse",
"graffiti",
"mermaid",
"Johannes Rau"
] |
|
16127_T | Lorelei Fountain | Focus on Lorelei Fountain and explore the Cited sources. | Michele Bogart: The Politics of Urban Beauty, Chicago 2006.
Brigitte Hüfler: Ernst Herter 1846–1917, Werk und Porträt eines Berliner Bildhauers, Berlin 1978.
Paul Reitter: "Heine in the Bronx", in: The Germanic Review 74 (4), 1999, pp 327–336.
Jeffrey L. Sammons: "The Restoration of the Heine Monument in the Bronx" in: The Germanic Review 74 (4), 1999, pp 337–339.
Wolfgang Schedelberger: Heinrich Heine in der Bronx, in: Extra (Wochenend-Beilage zur Wiener Zeitung), December 11, 1998, p 5
Dietrich Schubert: "Der Kampf um das erste Heine-Denkmal. Düsseldorf 1887–1893, Mainz 1893–1894, New York 1899", in: Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch: Westdeutsches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 51, 1990, pp. 241–272.
Dietrich Schubert: Jetzt wohin?“ Heinrich Heine in seinen verhinderten und errichteten Denkmälern, Köln 1999.
"Heine in the Bronx", February 17, 2006 Archived July 12, 2009, at the Wayback Machine | [
"Ernst Herter",
"Düsseldorf",
"the Bronx",
"Mainz",
"Heinrich Heine"
] |
|
16127_NT | Lorelei Fountain | Focus on this artwork and explore the Cited sources. | Michele Bogart: The Politics of Urban Beauty, Chicago 2006.
Brigitte Hüfler: Ernst Herter 1846–1917, Werk und Porträt eines Berliner Bildhauers, Berlin 1978.
Paul Reitter: "Heine in the Bronx", in: The Germanic Review 74 (4), 1999, pp 327–336.
Jeffrey L. Sammons: "The Restoration of the Heine Monument in the Bronx" in: The Germanic Review 74 (4), 1999, pp 337–339.
Wolfgang Schedelberger: Heinrich Heine in der Bronx, in: Extra (Wochenend-Beilage zur Wiener Zeitung), December 11, 1998, p 5
Dietrich Schubert: "Der Kampf um das erste Heine-Denkmal. Düsseldorf 1887–1893, Mainz 1893–1894, New York 1899", in: Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch: Westdeutsches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 51, 1990, pp. 241–272.
Dietrich Schubert: Jetzt wohin?“ Heinrich Heine in seinen verhinderten und errichteten Denkmälern, Köln 1999.
"Heine in the Bronx", February 17, 2006 Archived July 12, 2009, at the Wayback Machine | [
"Ernst Herter",
"Düsseldorf",
"the Bronx",
"Mainz",
"Heinrich Heine"
] |
|
16128_T | Ainu and Native American power boards | Focus on Ainu and Native American power boards and explain the abstract. | The Ainu and Native American power boards are two hand carved wooden planks by members of Ainu and Chinook tribes, installed outside the Oregon Convention Center in Portland, Oregon. The pieces were commissioned for Forest of Dreams and exhibited at the Portland Japanese Garden before being erected in the Lloyd Center in 2019. | [
"Oregon Convention Center",
"Ainu",
"Chinook",
"Lloyd Center",
"Portland Japanese Garden",
"Portland, Oregon"
] |
|
16128_NT | Ainu and Native American power boards | Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract. | The Ainu and Native American power boards are two hand carved wooden planks by members of Ainu and Chinook tribes, installed outside the Oregon Convention Center in Portland, Oregon. The pieces were commissioned for Forest of Dreams and exhibited at the Portland Japanese Garden before being erected in the Lloyd Center in 2019. | [
"Oregon Convention Center",
"Ainu",
"Chinook",
"Lloyd Center",
"Portland Japanese Garden",
"Portland, Oregon"
] |
|
16129_T | Proclamation of the Abolition of Slavery in the French Colonies, 27 April 1848 | Explore the abstract of this artwork, Proclamation of the Abolition of Slavery in the French Colonies, 27 April 1848. | Proclamation of the Abolition of Slavery in the French Colonies, 27 April 1848 is an 1849 painting by French artist François-Auguste Biard which is kept in the Palace of Versailles, France. | [
"France",
"Palace of Versailles",
"François-Auguste Biard",
"Versailles"
] |
|
16129_NT | Proclamation of the Abolition of Slavery in the French Colonies, 27 April 1848 | Explore the abstract of this artwork. | Proclamation of the Abolition of Slavery in the French Colonies, 27 April 1848 is an 1849 painting by French artist François-Auguste Biard which is kept in the Palace of Versailles, France. | [
"France",
"Palace of Versailles",
"François-Auguste Biard",
"Versailles"
] |
|
16130_T | Reception of the Grand Condé at Versailles | Focus on Reception of the Grand Condé at Versailles and discuss the abstract. | Reception of the Grand Condé at Versailles (French: Réception du Grand Condé à Versailles), also known as Reception of the Grand Condé by Louis XIV (Réception du Grand Condé par Louis XIV), is a painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme, painted in 1878. It represents the reception of Louis II de Bourbon-Condé by Louis XIV, at the Palace of Versailles, at the foot of the Escalier des Ambassadeurs [fr], in 1674. The painting was acquired in 2004 by the Musée d'Orsay. | [
"Louis II de Bourbon-Condé",
"French",
"Musée d'Orsay",
"Palace of Versailles",
"Louis XIV",
"fr",
"Jean-Léon Gérôme",
"1878",
"Escalier des Ambassadeurs"
] |
|
16130_NT | Reception of the Grand Condé at Versailles | Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract. | Reception of the Grand Condé at Versailles (French: Réception du Grand Condé à Versailles), also known as Reception of the Grand Condé by Louis XIV (Réception du Grand Condé par Louis XIV), is a painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme, painted in 1878. It represents the reception of Louis II de Bourbon-Condé by Louis XIV, at the Palace of Versailles, at the foot of the Escalier des Ambassadeurs [fr], in 1674. The painting was acquired in 2004 by the Musée d'Orsay. | [
"Louis II de Bourbon-Condé",
"French",
"Musée d'Orsay",
"Palace of Versailles",
"Louis XIV",
"fr",
"Jean-Léon Gérôme",
"1878",
"Escalier des Ambassadeurs"
] |
|
16131_T | Reception of the Grand Condé at Versailles | How does Reception of the Grand Condé at Versailles elucidate its Analysis? | Following the mixed success of another of his paintings, Siècle d'Auguste : naissance de N. S. Jésus Christ (Exposition Universelle of 1855), Gérôme chose to focus on “small” history. In this painting he highlighted the comedy of power, through the belated allegiance of the prince to his king. The taste for reconstruction and the painter's precision are found in the representation of the rich court costumes, and in the reproduction of the monumental Escalier des Ambassadeurs de Versailles, destroyed more than a century earlier. | [
"Exposition Universelle of 1855",
"Escalier des Ambassadeurs"
] |
|
16131_NT | Reception of the Grand Condé at Versailles | How does this artwork elucidate its Analysis? | Following the mixed success of another of his paintings, Siècle d'Auguste : naissance de N. S. Jésus Christ (Exposition Universelle of 1855), Gérôme chose to focus on “small” history. In this painting he highlighted the comedy of power, through the belated allegiance of the prince to his king. The taste for reconstruction and the painter's precision are found in the representation of the rich court costumes, and in the reproduction of the monumental Escalier des Ambassadeurs de Versailles, destroyed more than a century earlier. | [
"Exposition Universelle of 1855",
"Escalier des Ambassadeurs"
] |
|
16132_T | Reception of the Grand Condé at Versailles | Focus on Reception of the Grand Condé at Versailles and analyze the History. | Gérôme's painting was acquired in 2004 by the Musée d'Orsay.In 2014, the painting was loaned to the Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon as part of the exhibition L'invention du Passé. Histoires de cœur et d'épée 1802-1850 [fr]. | [
"Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon",
"Musée d'Orsay",
"fr"
] |
|
16132_NT | Reception of the Grand Condé at Versailles | Focus on this artwork and analyze the History. | Gérôme's painting was acquired in 2004 by the Musée d'Orsay.In 2014, the painting was loaned to the Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon as part of the exhibition L'invention du Passé. Histoires de cœur et d'épée 1802-1850 [fr]. | [
"Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon",
"Musée d'Orsay",
"fr"
] |
|
16133_T | Ginevra de' Benci | In Ginevra de' Benci, how is the abstract discussed? | Ginevra de' Benci is a portrait painting by Leonardo da Vinci of the 15th-century Florentine aristocrat Ginevra de' Benci (born c. 1458). Exhibited at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. US; it is the only painting by Leonardo on public view in the Americas. | [
"National Gallery of Art",
"Ginevra de' Benci",
"Florentine",
"Americas",
"Washington, D.C.",
"Leonardo da Vinci"
] |
|
16133_NT | Ginevra de' Benci | In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed? | Ginevra de' Benci is a portrait painting by Leonardo da Vinci of the 15th-century Florentine aristocrat Ginevra de' Benci (born c. 1458). Exhibited at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. US; it is the only painting by Leonardo on public view in the Americas. | [
"National Gallery of Art",
"Ginevra de' Benci",
"Florentine",
"Americas",
"Washington, D.C.",
"Leonardo da Vinci"
] |
|
16134_T | Ginevra de' Benci | Focus on Ginevra de' Benci and explore the Subject. | Ginevra de' Benci, a well-known young Florentine woman, is universally considered to be the portrait's sitter. Leonardo painted the portrait in Florence between 1474 and 1478, possibly to commemorate Ginevra's marriage to Luigi di Bernardo Niccolini at the age of 16. More likely, it commemorates the engagement. Commonly, contemporary portraits of females were commissioned for either of two occasions: betrothal or marriage. Wedding portraits traditionally were created in pairs, with the woman on the right, facing left; since this portrait faces right, it more likely represents betrothal.The juniper bush that surrounds Ginevra's head and fills much of the background, serves more than mere decorative purposes. In Renaissance Italy, the juniper was regarded a symbol of female virtue, while the Italian word for juniper, ginepro, also makes a play on Ginevra's name.The imagery and text on the reverse of the panel—a juniper sprig encircled by a wreath of laurel and palm, memorialized by the Latin motto Virtvtem Forma Decorat ("Beauty adorns virtue")—further support the identification of the portrait. The phrase is understood as symbolizing the intricate relationship between Ginevra's intellectual and moral virtue on the one hand, and her physical beauty on the other. The sprig of juniper, encircled by laurel and palm, suggests her name. The laurel and palm are in the personal emblem of Bernardo Bembo, a Venetian ambassador to Florence whose platonic relationship with Ginevra is revealed in poems exchanged between them. Infrared examination has revealed Bembo's motto "Virtue and Honor" beneath Ginevra's, making it likely that Bembo was somehow involved in the commission of the portrait.
The portrait is one of the highlights of the National Gallery of Art, and is admired by many for its portrayal of Ginevra's temperament. Ginevra is beautiful, but austere; she has no hint of a smile and her gaze, although forward, seems indifferent to the viewer.At some point, the bottom of the painting was removed, presumably owing to damage, and Ginevra's arms and hands are thought to have been lost. Using the golden ratio, Susan Dorothea White has drawn an interpretation of how her arms and hands may have been positioned in the original. The adaptation is based on drawings of hands by Leonardo thought to be studies for this painting. | [
"Florence",
"betrothal",
"National Gallery of Art",
"Ginevra de' Benci",
"Florentine",
"Bernardo Bembo",
"laurel",
"juniper",
"Luigi di Bernardo Niccolini",
"Renaissance Italy",
"golden ratio",
"palm",
"Susan Dorothea White"
] |
|
16134_NT | Ginevra de' Benci | Focus on this artwork and explore the Subject. | Ginevra de' Benci, a well-known young Florentine woman, is universally considered to be the portrait's sitter. Leonardo painted the portrait in Florence between 1474 and 1478, possibly to commemorate Ginevra's marriage to Luigi di Bernardo Niccolini at the age of 16. More likely, it commemorates the engagement. Commonly, contemporary portraits of females were commissioned for either of two occasions: betrothal or marriage. Wedding portraits traditionally were created in pairs, with the woman on the right, facing left; since this portrait faces right, it more likely represents betrothal.The juniper bush that surrounds Ginevra's head and fills much of the background, serves more than mere decorative purposes. In Renaissance Italy, the juniper was regarded a symbol of female virtue, while the Italian word for juniper, ginepro, also makes a play on Ginevra's name.The imagery and text on the reverse of the panel—a juniper sprig encircled by a wreath of laurel and palm, memorialized by the Latin motto Virtvtem Forma Decorat ("Beauty adorns virtue")—further support the identification of the portrait. The phrase is understood as symbolizing the intricate relationship between Ginevra's intellectual and moral virtue on the one hand, and her physical beauty on the other. The sprig of juniper, encircled by laurel and palm, suggests her name. The laurel and palm are in the personal emblem of Bernardo Bembo, a Venetian ambassador to Florence whose platonic relationship with Ginevra is revealed in poems exchanged between them. Infrared examination has revealed Bembo's motto "Virtue and Honor" beneath Ginevra's, making it likely that Bembo was somehow involved in the commission of the portrait.
The portrait is one of the highlights of the National Gallery of Art, and is admired by many for its portrayal of Ginevra's temperament. Ginevra is beautiful, but austere; she has no hint of a smile and her gaze, although forward, seems indifferent to the viewer.At some point, the bottom of the painting was removed, presumably owing to damage, and Ginevra's arms and hands are thought to have been lost. Using the golden ratio, Susan Dorothea White has drawn an interpretation of how her arms and hands may have been positioned in the original. The adaptation is based on drawings of hands by Leonardo thought to be studies for this painting. | [
"Florence",
"betrothal",
"National Gallery of Art",
"Ginevra de' Benci",
"Florentine",
"Bernardo Bembo",
"laurel",
"juniper",
"Luigi di Bernardo Niccolini",
"Renaissance Italy",
"golden ratio",
"palm",
"Susan Dorothea White"
] |
|
16135_T | Ginevra de' Benci | Focus on Ginevra de' Benci and explain the Trivia. | As a woman of renowned beauty, Ginevra de' Benci was also the subject of ten poems written by members of the Medici circle, Cristoforo Landino and Alessandro Braccesi, and of two sonnets by Lorenzo de' Medici himself.
According to Giorgio Vasari, Ginevra de' Benci was also included in the fresco by Domenico Ghirlandaio of the Visitation of Mary and Elizabeth in the church of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, but it is now believed that Vasari made a mistake and that Ghirlandaio painted Giovanna Tornabuoni.
Ginevra's brother Giovanni (1456–1523) was a friend of Leonardo. When Vasari wrote his Lives, Leonardo's unfinished Adoration of the Magi was in the house of Amerigo Benci, Giovanni's son.
In 2017, the researcher and cryptographer Carla Glori anagrammatized fifty Latin sentences signed VINCI, formed with the very same alphabetical letters of the motto VIRTVTEM FORMA DECORAT when supplemented with the Latin word iuniperus (juniper [sprig]). Glori argues that the anagrams form a coherent text and have a meaning that unequivocally refers to the portrait and to the biography of Ginevra Benci. | [
"Cristoforo Landino",
"Santa Maria Novella",
"Giorgio Vasari",
"Florence",
"Ginevra de' Benci",
"Domenico Ghirlandaio",
"Lives",
"juniper",
"Lorenzo de' Medici",
"Adoration of the Magi"
] |
|
16135_NT | Ginevra de' Benci | Focus on this artwork and explain the Trivia. | As a woman of renowned beauty, Ginevra de' Benci was also the subject of ten poems written by members of the Medici circle, Cristoforo Landino and Alessandro Braccesi, and of two sonnets by Lorenzo de' Medici himself.
According to Giorgio Vasari, Ginevra de' Benci was also included in the fresco by Domenico Ghirlandaio of the Visitation of Mary and Elizabeth in the church of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, but it is now believed that Vasari made a mistake and that Ghirlandaio painted Giovanna Tornabuoni.
Ginevra's brother Giovanni (1456–1523) was a friend of Leonardo. When Vasari wrote his Lives, Leonardo's unfinished Adoration of the Magi was in the house of Amerigo Benci, Giovanni's son.
In 2017, the researcher and cryptographer Carla Glori anagrammatized fifty Latin sentences signed VINCI, formed with the very same alphabetical letters of the motto VIRTVTEM FORMA DECORAT when supplemented with the Latin word iuniperus (juniper [sprig]). Glori argues that the anagrams form a coherent text and have a meaning that unequivocally refers to the portrait and to the biography of Ginevra Benci. | [
"Cristoforo Landino",
"Santa Maria Novella",
"Giorgio Vasari",
"Florence",
"Ginevra de' Benci",
"Domenico Ghirlandaio",
"Lives",
"juniper",
"Lorenzo de' Medici",
"Adoration of the Magi"
] |
|
16136_T | Self-Portrait at the Age of 34 | Explore the abstract of this artwork, Self-Portrait at the Age of 34. | Self-Portrait at the Age of 34 is a self-portrait by Rembrandt, dating to 1640 and now in the National Gallery in London. The painting is one of many self-portraits by Rembrandt, in both painting and etching, to show the artist in a fancy costume from the previous century. In this case specific influences in the pose have long been recognised from Raphael's Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione (now Louvre) and Titian's A Man with a Quilted Sleeve (in 2017 called Portrait of Gerolamo? Barbarigo) in the National Gallery. Rembrandt saw both of these in Amsterdam, in his day the centre of Europe's art trade, and made a sketch of the Raphael, with its price.He had tried out a similar pose in an etching of 1639, Self Portrait, Leaning on a Stone Wall (B21), looking rather more rakish.The artist depicted himself at the height of his career, richly dressed and self-secure. It is one of over forty painted self-portraits by Rembrandt. | [
"Raphael",
"Barbarigo",
"Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione",
"Rembrandt",
"Titian",
"self-portrait",
"Louvre",
"National Gallery",
"London",
"self-portraits by Rembrandt",
"A Man with a Quilted Sleeve"
] |
|
16136_NT | Self-Portrait at the Age of 34 | Explore the abstract of this artwork. | Self-Portrait at the Age of 34 is a self-portrait by Rembrandt, dating to 1640 and now in the National Gallery in London. The painting is one of many self-portraits by Rembrandt, in both painting and etching, to show the artist in a fancy costume from the previous century. In this case specific influences in the pose have long been recognised from Raphael's Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione (now Louvre) and Titian's A Man with a Quilted Sleeve (in 2017 called Portrait of Gerolamo? Barbarigo) in the National Gallery. Rembrandt saw both of these in Amsterdam, in his day the centre of Europe's art trade, and made a sketch of the Raphael, with its price.He had tried out a similar pose in an etching of 1639, Self Portrait, Leaning on a Stone Wall (B21), looking rather more rakish.The artist depicted himself at the height of his career, richly dressed and self-secure. It is one of over forty painted self-portraits by Rembrandt. | [
"Raphael",
"Barbarigo",
"Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione",
"Rembrandt",
"Titian",
"self-portrait",
"Louvre",
"National Gallery",
"London",
"self-portraits by Rembrandt",
"A Man with a Quilted Sleeve"
] |
|
16137_T | Self-Portrait at the Age of 34 | Focus on Self-Portrait at the Age of 34 and discuss the Painting materials. | The scientific analysis of this painting by the scientists at the National Gallery in London revealed the use of the following pigments by Rembrandt: lead white, bone black, charcoal black, ochres and vermilion. | [
"charcoal black",
"vermilion",
"lead white",
"Rembrandt",
"National Gallery",
"London",
"ochres"
] |
|
16137_NT | Self-Portrait at the Age of 34 | Focus on this artwork and discuss the Painting materials. | The scientific analysis of this painting by the scientists at the National Gallery in London revealed the use of the following pigments by Rembrandt: lead white, bone black, charcoal black, ochres and vermilion. | [
"charcoal black",
"vermilion",
"lead white",
"Rembrandt",
"National Gallery",
"London",
"ochres"
] |
|
16138_T | Fragments of a Cope with the Seven Sacraments | How does Fragments of a Cope with the Seven Sacraments elucidate its Description? | The piece pictured is the hood. It depicts the Eucharist in the new tradition of the Devotio Moderna that arose in the Netherlands in the fifteenth century. The embroidery uses one of the most expensive of the Tournai embroiders' techniques, the or nué (shaded gold) technique in which the juxtaposed gold threads are more or less closely covered by silk threads. A famous example of this kind of work is the Mantle of the Vestments of the Order of the Golden Fleece dating from around 1425–1450 and now at the Imperial Treasury, Vienna.
The cope was commissioned by Jacques of Savoy, Count of Romont and presented by him to the Bishop of Lausanne. The Coat of Arms of the Counts of Savoy is embroidered at the bottom and show that the work was made before 1478, the year Jacques of Savoy was admitted to the Order of the Golden Fleece, as it lacks the Collar of the Golden Fleece. | [
"Order of the Golden Fleece ",
"Order of the Golden Fleece",
"Imperial Treasury, Vienna",
" or nué",
"Devotio Moderna",
"Collar of the Golden Fleece",
"Eucharist",
"Tournai",
"Jacques of Savoy, Count of Romont",
"Mantle of the Vestments of the Order of the Golden Fleece",
"cope",
"Bishop of Lausanne",
"Netherlands"
] |
|
16138_NT | Fragments of a Cope with the Seven Sacraments | How does this artwork elucidate its Description? | The piece pictured is the hood. It depicts the Eucharist in the new tradition of the Devotio Moderna that arose in the Netherlands in the fifteenth century. The embroidery uses one of the most expensive of the Tournai embroiders' techniques, the or nué (shaded gold) technique in which the juxtaposed gold threads are more or less closely covered by silk threads. A famous example of this kind of work is the Mantle of the Vestments of the Order of the Golden Fleece dating from around 1425–1450 and now at the Imperial Treasury, Vienna.
The cope was commissioned by Jacques of Savoy, Count of Romont and presented by him to the Bishop of Lausanne. The Coat of Arms of the Counts of Savoy is embroidered at the bottom and show that the work was made before 1478, the year Jacques of Savoy was admitted to the Order of the Golden Fleece, as it lacks the Collar of the Golden Fleece. | [
"Order of the Golden Fleece ",
"Order of the Golden Fleece",
"Imperial Treasury, Vienna",
" or nué",
"Devotio Moderna",
"Collar of the Golden Fleece",
"Eucharist",
"Tournai",
"Jacques of Savoy, Count of Romont",
"Mantle of the Vestments of the Order of the Golden Fleece",
"cope",
"Bishop of Lausanne",
"Netherlands"
] |
|
16139_T | Madonna and Child (Boltraffio, 1495) | Focus on Madonna and Child (Boltraffio, 1495) and analyze the abstract. | Madonna and Child is an oil on canvas painting of 1495-96 by the Italian artist Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. It is said by some scholars to be "the finest Leonardesque picture not painted by Leonardo himself. Sfumato is evident in the work. The wood upon which it was painted comes from the same batch as Leonardo's own Virgin of the Rocks. It was once believed the painting was unfinished (further details upon the faience bowl), but that has now been disproven. | [
"oil on canvas",
"Virgin of the Rocks",
"Sfumato",
"faience",
"Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio",
"Leonardo"
] |
|
16139_NT | Madonna and Child (Boltraffio, 1495) | Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract. | Madonna and Child is an oil on canvas painting of 1495-96 by the Italian artist Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. It is said by some scholars to be "the finest Leonardesque picture not painted by Leonardo himself. Sfumato is evident in the work. The wood upon which it was painted comes from the same batch as Leonardo's own Virgin of the Rocks. It was once believed the painting was unfinished (further details upon the faience bowl), but that has now been disproven. | [
"oil on canvas",
"Virgin of the Rocks",
"Sfumato",
"faience",
"Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio",
"Leonardo"
] |
|
16140_T | Annunciation (Ambrogio Lorenzetti) | In Annunciation (Ambrogio Lorenzetti), how is the abstract discussed? | The Annunciation is a painting by the Italian late medieval painter Ambrogio Lorenzetti, signed and dated 1344, now housed in the Pinacoteca Nazionale of Siena, Italy.
It was painted for the Ufficio della Gabella ("Office of the Tax") of the commune of Siena, as specified by two-line signature at the bottom (the painter named himself Ambruogio Lorenzi). It was originally located in the Consistory Hall of the Palazzo Pubblico. | [
"Palazzo Pubblico",
"Annunciation",
"Pinacoteca Nazionale",
"Lorenzetti",
"Ambrogio Lorenzetti",
"Siena"
] |
|
16140_NT | Annunciation (Ambrogio Lorenzetti) | In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed? | The Annunciation is a painting by the Italian late medieval painter Ambrogio Lorenzetti, signed and dated 1344, now housed in the Pinacoteca Nazionale of Siena, Italy.
It was painted for the Ufficio della Gabella ("Office of the Tax") of the commune of Siena, as specified by two-line signature at the bottom (the painter named himself Ambruogio Lorenzi). It was originally located in the Consistory Hall of the Palazzo Pubblico. | [
"Palazzo Pubblico",
"Annunciation",
"Pinacoteca Nazionale",
"Lorenzetti",
"Ambrogio Lorenzetti",
"Siena"
] |
|
16141_T | Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe (Monet, Moscow) | Focus on Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe (Monet, Moscow) and explore the abstract. | Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe is an 1866 painting by Claude Monet, a smaller version of a slightly earlier work now in the Musée d'Orsay. It is now in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow. | [
"a slightly earlier work now in the Musée d'Orsay",
"Musée d'Orsay",
"Pushkin Museum",
"Claude Monet"
] |
|
16141_NT | Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe (Monet, Moscow) | Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract. | Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe is an 1866 painting by Claude Monet, a smaller version of a slightly earlier work now in the Musée d'Orsay. It is now in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow. | [
"a slightly earlier work now in the Musée d'Orsay",
"Musée d'Orsay",
"Pushkin Museum",
"Claude Monet"
] |
|
16142_T | A Visit from the Old Mistress | Focus on A Visit from the Old Mistress and explain the abstract. | A Visit from the Old Mistress is an 1876 painting by the prominent 19th-century American artist Winslow Homer. It was one of several works that Homer is thought to have created during a mid-1870s visit to Virginia, where he had served for a time as a Union war correspondent during the Civil War. Scholars have noted that the painting's composition is taken from Homer's earlier painting Prisoners from the Front, which depicts a group of captive Confederate soldiers defiantly regarding a Union officer. Put on display in the northern states for a northern audience, A Visit from the Old Mistress, along with Homer's other paintings of black southern life from the Reconstruction era, has been praised as an "invaluable record of an important segment of life in Virginia during the Reconstruction." | [
"Reconstruction era",
"Prisoners from the Front",
"Winslow Homer",
"Civil War"
] |
|
16142_NT | A Visit from the Old Mistress | Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract. | A Visit from the Old Mistress is an 1876 painting by the prominent 19th-century American artist Winslow Homer. It was one of several works that Homer is thought to have created during a mid-1870s visit to Virginia, where he had served for a time as a Union war correspondent during the Civil War. Scholars have noted that the painting's composition is taken from Homer's earlier painting Prisoners from the Front, which depicts a group of captive Confederate soldiers defiantly regarding a Union officer. Put on display in the northern states for a northern audience, A Visit from the Old Mistress, along with Homer's other paintings of black southern life from the Reconstruction era, has been praised as an "invaluable record of an important segment of life in Virginia during the Reconstruction." | [
"Reconstruction era",
"Prisoners from the Front",
"Winslow Homer",
"Civil War"
] |
|
16143_T | A Visit from the Old Mistress | In the context of A Visit from the Old Mistress, discuss the Subject and message of the General. |
The left side of the painting shows three Black women dressed in torn clothes, one of whom is sitting, one of whom is standing holding a Black baby, and the third of whom is standing in the middle of the composition. They face an old white woman (the titular Old Mistress) dressed in a widow's black dress with a white lace collar, standing upright and looking evenly at the other subjects. The scene takes place in the cabin belonging to the Black women, even though an alternate title of the piece would place it in the mistress's kitchen. The intended tone of the painting is debated by art historians, with earlier writers suggesting a level of "humor" inherent in the composition, and later commentators insisting that the composition is either intended to relate a message of stubborn resistance on the part of the former slaves to their former mistress, or to create an infantilized and harmless image of recently emancipated Blacks. | [
"left"
] |
|
16143_NT | A Visit from the Old Mistress | In the context of this artwork, discuss the Subject and message of the General. |
The left side of the painting shows three Black women dressed in torn clothes, one of whom is sitting, one of whom is standing holding a Black baby, and the third of whom is standing in the middle of the composition. They face an old white woman (the titular Old Mistress) dressed in a widow's black dress with a white lace collar, standing upright and looking evenly at the other subjects. The scene takes place in the cabin belonging to the Black women, even though an alternate title of the piece would place it in the mistress's kitchen. The intended tone of the painting is debated by art historians, with earlier writers suggesting a level of "humor" inherent in the composition, and later commentators insisting that the composition is either intended to relate a message of stubborn resistance on the part of the former slaves to their former mistress, or to create an infantilized and harmless image of recently emancipated Blacks. | [
"left"
] |
|
16144_T | A Visit from the Old Mistress | In A Visit from the Old Mistress, how is the Title and background of the General elucidated? | According to Homer's early biographer William Howe Downes, "Homer's attention had been strongly attracted to the negroes" while he was attached to the Union Army of the Potomac as a war correspondent, and he renewed this interest in 1877 when he took a tour of post-war Virginia and created a string of works focused on primarily black subjects. These works included well-known paintings such as Dressing for the Carnival (1877). According to Downes, "the only known reference to a southern trip was the one he made in 1877," but "the question of when and how often Homer revisited the South after the Civil War" remains open. Whether he had been back to Virginia and had observed a scene like the one in A Visit, or if he had simply composed it from memories assembled during his time in the war, or by means of studio sets, is therefore a matter of speculation. Some scholars maintain that Homer did, in fact, make earlier visits to Virginia in 1875 and 1876, wherein he came to understand blacks not merely as "a humorous object," as they seem to be in some of his Civil War-era sketches, but as serious and fundamentally human subjects in art, paving the way for his much more serious compositions in the 70's.The original title, and the title used today, A Visit from the Old Mistress, has a double meaning. Whether the title is intended to mean, "a visit from the former mistress," (suggesting that the blacks are now free) or that the title should mean, "a visit from the mistress who is old," (suggesting that, despite their emancipation, the former slaves are still under the power of their mistress), is left unclear. The painting has also been catalogued under the titles, The Visit to the Mistress (implying that the scene takes place in the mistress's manor) and The Visit of the Mistress (implying that the blacks in the painting remain under the power of their old mistress). | [
"Dressing for the Carnival",
"left",
"Army of the Potomac",
"studio sets",
"Civil War"
] |
|
16144_NT | A Visit from the Old Mistress | In this artwork, how is the Title and background of the General elucidated? | According to Homer's early biographer William Howe Downes, "Homer's attention had been strongly attracted to the negroes" while he was attached to the Union Army of the Potomac as a war correspondent, and he renewed this interest in 1877 when he took a tour of post-war Virginia and created a string of works focused on primarily black subjects. These works included well-known paintings such as Dressing for the Carnival (1877). According to Downes, "the only known reference to a southern trip was the one he made in 1877," but "the question of when and how often Homer revisited the South after the Civil War" remains open. Whether he had been back to Virginia and had observed a scene like the one in A Visit, or if he had simply composed it from memories assembled during his time in the war, or by means of studio sets, is therefore a matter of speculation. Some scholars maintain that Homer did, in fact, make earlier visits to Virginia in 1875 and 1876, wherein he came to understand blacks not merely as "a humorous object," as they seem to be in some of his Civil War-era sketches, but as serious and fundamentally human subjects in art, paving the way for his much more serious compositions in the 70's.The original title, and the title used today, A Visit from the Old Mistress, has a double meaning. Whether the title is intended to mean, "a visit from the former mistress," (suggesting that the blacks are now free) or that the title should mean, "a visit from the mistress who is old," (suggesting that, despite their emancipation, the former slaves are still under the power of their mistress), is left unclear. The painting has also been catalogued under the titles, The Visit to the Mistress (implying that the scene takes place in the mistress's manor) and The Visit of the Mistress (implying that the blacks in the painting remain under the power of their old mistress). | [
"Dressing for the Carnival",
"left",
"Army of the Potomac",
"studio sets",
"Civil War"
] |
|
16145_T | A Visit from the Old Mistress | In the context of A Visit from the Old Mistress, analyze the Display and ownership of the General. | The painting was initially purchased by Thomas B. Clarke, a private collector from New York. It changed hands again when Clarke sold his collection in 1899. It was then acquired by William T. Evans, who donated it to the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C, where it was displayed under the title The Visit of the Mistress. It was later transferred to the Smithsonian American Art Museum, where it remains on display.A Visit from the Old Mistress was one of five paintings which Homer exhibited at the Paris Universal Exposition of 1878. | [
"Paris Universal Exposition of 1878",
"Smithsonian American Art Museum"
] |
|
16145_NT | A Visit from the Old Mistress | In the context of this artwork, analyze the Display and ownership of the General. | The painting was initially purchased by Thomas B. Clarke, a private collector from New York. It changed hands again when Clarke sold his collection in 1899. It was then acquired by William T. Evans, who donated it to the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C, where it was displayed under the title The Visit of the Mistress. It was later transferred to the Smithsonian American Art Museum, where it remains on display.A Visit from the Old Mistress was one of five paintings which Homer exhibited at the Paris Universal Exposition of 1878. | [
"Paris Universal Exposition of 1878",
"Smithsonian American Art Museum"
] |
|
16146_T | A Visit from the Old Mistress | In A Visit from the Old Mistress, how is the Comparisons discussed? | Scholars have observed that the composition of A Visit from the Old Mistress is nearly identical to that in Homer's earlier work Prisoners from the Front, wherein a band of recently captured Confederate soldiers are shown standing defiantly in the face of their Union captor. This comparison has been used to suggest that A Visit is, like Prisoners, a confrontation scene, implying that the former slaves stand up (or, in one case, pointedly refuse to stand) and boldly face their old mistress, who no longer wields the power she once maintained over their lives.
The interiors for both A Visit from the Old Mistress and Sunday Morning in Virginia were very likely composed simultaneously, as they both appear to be set in the same room. The subjects in each painting, however, appear to differ. | [
"Prisoners from the Front"
] |
|
16146_NT | A Visit from the Old Mistress | In this artwork, how is the Comparisons discussed? | Scholars have observed that the composition of A Visit from the Old Mistress is nearly identical to that in Homer's earlier work Prisoners from the Front, wherein a band of recently captured Confederate soldiers are shown standing defiantly in the face of their Union captor. This comparison has been used to suggest that A Visit is, like Prisoners, a confrontation scene, implying that the former slaves stand up (or, in one case, pointedly refuse to stand) and boldly face their old mistress, who no longer wields the power she once maintained over their lives.
The interiors for both A Visit from the Old Mistress and Sunday Morning in Virginia were very likely composed simultaneously, as they both appear to be set in the same room. The subjects in each painting, however, appear to differ. | [
"Prisoners from the Front"
] |
|
16147_T | A Visit from the Old Mistress | Focus on A Visit from the Old Mistress and explore the Depiction of black subjects. | The piece was initially received as being an example of Winslow Homer's shift towards realism in the depiction of black subjects, turning away from caricature. A contemporary critic wrote, "Mr. Homer is one of the few men who have been successful in painting the negro character without exaggerating or caricaturing it."Much modern critical commentary on the piece focuses on the twofold racial implications found within the work, both in the subject of the painting (a white woman, presumably a former slaveowner, standing with her former slaves), and in the very act of the composition of the work itself (Winslow Homer, a white Northerner, creating an image of black Southerners). The early Homer biographer William Howe Downes stated, "the three former slaves are observed and described most vividly and keenly. In their solemnity of demeanor, the humility of their expression, and the evident awe which the presence of the old mistress inspires, there is a blending of pathos and humor, which belongs to the situation, and is all the better for not having been injected into it." Later commentators, such as art historian Jo-Ann Morgan, have incorporated these observations into more critical analyses of the painting. Morgan writes that Homer's "representations of African-Americans as ragged women" were designed to reassure white viewers that there was "no potential to upset existing hierarchies of power." According to this interpretation, "Homer let viewers feel good that slavery was ended, while assuring them that the plantation system persisted. Mapping distinctions in physiques—mistress aloof, ex-slaves slumped; dress—hers fine, theirs ragged; and site—the same old cabin; A Visit from the Old Mistress fixed in place a lateral hierarchy."
This understanding of the painting is challenged by other modern critics such as Sidney Kaplan, who writes:
A blonde, curled mistress, with parasol and lace, seems to expect 'friendship' from her former slaves, but the black matriarch, her great arms at her sides, stands like a cofferdam. She is scarcely a Jemima—not even a Faulknerian Dilsey. Her glance is rejection, a withering of the white delusion of her simplicity, while the eyes and mouths of her family shadow forth nuances of her dignity, scorn, and restraint.
Kaplan argues that the painting is neither a humorous scene, nor a manifestation of blatant white supremacy—rather, it embraces black identity, now freed from the bonds of slavery, and highlights both the "dignity" and independence of the black community, while revealing "a silent tension between two communities seeking to understand their future." | [
"Winslow Homer"
] |
|
16147_NT | A Visit from the Old Mistress | Focus on this artwork and explore the Depiction of black subjects. | The piece was initially received as being an example of Winslow Homer's shift towards realism in the depiction of black subjects, turning away from caricature. A contemporary critic wrote, "Mr. Homer is one of the few men who have been successful in painting the negro character without exaggerating or caricaturing it."Much modern critical commentary on the piece focuses on the twofold racial implications found within the work, both in the subject of the painting (a white woman, presumably a former slaveowner, standing with her former slaves), and in the very act of the composition of the work itself (Winslow Homer, a white Northerner, creating an image of black Southerners). The early Homer biographer William Howe Downes stated, "the three former slaves are observed and described most vividly and keenly. In their solemnity of demeanor, the humility of their expression, and the evident awe which the presence of the old mistress inspires, there is a blending of pathos and humor, which belongs to the situation, and is all the better for not having been injected into it." Later commentators, such as art historian Jo-Ann Morgan, have incorporated these observations into more critical analyses of the painting. Morgan writes that Homer's "representations of African-Americans as ragged women" were designed to reassure white viewers that there was "no potential to upset existing hierarchies of power." According to this interpretation, "Homer let viewers feel good that slavery was ended, while assuring them that the plantation system persisted. Mapping distinctions in physiques—mistress aloof, ex-slaves slumped; dress—hers fine, theirs ragged; and site—the same old cabin; A Visit from the Old Mistress fixed in place a lateral hierarchy."
This understanding of the painting is challenged by other modern critics such as Sidney Kaplan, who writes:
A blonde, curled mistress, with parasol and lace, seems to expect 'friendship' from her former slaves, but the black matriarch, her great arms at her sides, stands like a cofferdam. She is scarcely a Jemima—not even a Faulknerian Dilsey. Her glance is rejection, a withering of the white delusion of her simplicity, while the eyes and mouths of her family shadow forth nuances of her dignity, scorn, and restraint.
Kaplan argues that the painting is neither a humorous scene, nor a manifestation of blatant white supremacy—rather, it embraces black identity, now freed from the bonds of slavery, and highlights both the "dignity" and independence of the black community, while revealing "a silent tension between two communities seeking to understand their future." | [
"Winslow Homer"
] |
|
16148_T | Nocturne: Blue and Gold – Old Battersea Bridge | Focus on Nocturne: Blue and Gold – Old Battersea Bridge and explain the abstract. | Nocturne: Blue and Gold – Old Battersea Bridge is a painting by the American artist James McNeill Whistler, now held in the collections of Tate Britain. It was painted around 1872–1875.
This painting is of the old wooden Battersea Bridge across the River Thames before it was replaced by the modern bridge. Chelsea Old Church to the left (on the north bank of the river) and the then recently built Albert Bridge to the right, with fireworks above, can be seen in the distance. The picture is an evening view and is full of atmospheric effect. The bridge is painted taller than it actually was for added effect. Hokusai, a favorite artist of Whistler's from Japan, produced a similar picture of a tall wooden bridge with fireworks.
Whistler's Nocturne series, of which this painting was a part, achieved notoriety in 1877, when influential critic John Ruskin visited an exhibition of the series at the Grosvenor Gallery. He wrote of the exhibition that Whistler was "asking two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face". Whistler sued for libel, the case reaching the courts in 1878. The judge in the case, one Baron Huddleston, caused laughter in the court when he (apparently sincerely) asked Whistler "Which part of the picture is the bridge?" The case ended with Whistler awarded token damages of one farthing.In 1905, Nocturne: Blue and Gold became the first significant acquisition by the newly formed National Art Collections Fund and was presented to the Tate Gallery. It now hangs in Tate Britain. | [
"American",
"Battersea Bridge",
"Albert Bridge",
"Hokusai",
"National Art Collections Fund",
"Japan",
"John Ruskin",
"Tate Britain",
"Tate",
"farthing",
"Tate Gallery",
"Grosvenor Gallery",
"Chelsea Old Church",
"James McNeill Whistler",
"guineas",
"River Thames"
] |
|
16148_NT | Nocturne: Blue and Gold – Old Battersea Bridge | Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract. | Nocturne: Blue and Gold – Old Battersea Bridge is a painting by the American artist James McNeill Whistler, now held in the collections of Tate Britain. It was painted around 1872–1875.
This painting is of the old wooden Battersea Bridge across the River Thames before it was replaced by the modern bridge. Chelsea Old Church to the left (on the north bank of the river) and the then recently built Albert Bridge to the right, with fireworks above, can be seen in the distance. The picture is an evening view and is full of atmospheric effect. The bridge is painted taller than it actually was for added effect. Hokusai, a favorite artist of Whistler's from Japan, produced a similar picture of a tall wooden bridge with fireworks.
Whistler's Nocturne series, of which this painting was a part, achieved notoriety in 1877, when influential critic John Ruskin visited an exhibition of the series at the Grosvenor Gallery. He wrote of the exhibition that Whistler was "asking two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face". Whistler sued for libel, the case reaching the courts in 1878. The judge in the case, one Baron Huddleston, caused laughter in the court when he (apparently sincerely) asked Whistler "Which part of the picture is the bridge?" The case ended with Whistler awarded token damages of one farthing.In 1905, Nocturne: Blue and Gold became the first significant acquisition by the newly formed National Art Collections Fund and was presented to the Tate Gallery. It now hangs in Tate Britain. | [
"American",
"Battersea Bridge",
"Albert Bridge",
"Hokusai",
"National Art Collections Fund",
"Japan",
"John Ruskin",
"Tate Britain",
"Tate",
"farthing",
"Tate Gallery",
"Grosvenor Gallery",
"Chelsea Old Church",
"James McNeill Whistler",
"guineas",
"River Thames"
] |
|
16149_T | Statue of Christopher Columbus (Miami) | Explore the abstract of this artwork, Statue of Christopher Columbus (Miami). | A statue of Christopher Columbus stands in the Bayfront Park of Miami, Florida, United States. | [
"Miami",
"Florida",
"Christopher Columbus",
"Bayfront Park"
] |
|
16149_NT | Statue of Christopher Columbus (Miami) | Explore the abstract of this artwork. | A statue of Christopher Columbus stands in the Bayfront Park of Miami, Florida, United States. | [
"Miami",
"Florida",
"Christopher Columbus",
"Bayfront Park"
] |
|
16150_T | Statue of Christopher Columbus (Miami) | Focus on Statue of Christopher Columbus (Miami) and discuss the History. | The statue itself was sculpted by Count Vittorio di Colbertaldo (1902-1979) of Verona, one of Benito Mussolini's hand picked ceremonial bodyguards known as the "Black Musketeers." Colbertaldo doubled as the Musketeers's sculptor, producing statues which commemorated the organization. A second Columbus statue done by Colbertaldo was in San Francisco until its removal in 2020.The statue was vandalized in June 2020 during the George Floyd protests. | [
"Verona",
"San Francisco",
"George Floyd protests",
"second Columbus statue",
"Benito Mussolini"
] |
|
16150_NT | Statue of Christopher Columbus (Miami) | Focus on this artwork and discuss the History. | The statue itself was sculpted by Count Vittorio di Colbertaldo (1902-1979) of Verona, one of Benito Mussolini's hand picked ceremonial bodyguards known as the "Black Musketeers." Colbertaldo doubled as the Musketeers's sculptor, producing statues which commemorated the organization. A second Columbus statue done by Colbertaldo was in San Francisco until its removal in 2020.The statue was vandalized in June 2020 during the George Floyd protests. | [
"Verona",
"San Francisco",
"George Floyd protests",
"second Columbus statue",
"Benito Mussolini"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.