ID
stringlengths 6
8
| title
stringlengths 3
136
| question
stringlengths 33
235
| answer
stringlengths 51
15.3k
| image_url
stringlengths 57
817
| entities
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
17051_T | Lapham Memorial | How does Lapham Memorial elucidate its Condition? | In May 1993, Save Outdoor Sculpture! surveyed and noted it needed treatment. | [
"Save Outdoor Sculpture!"
] |
|
17051_NT | Lapham Memorial | How does this artwork elucidate its Condition? | In May 1993, Save Outdoor Sculpture! surveyed and noted it needed treatment. | [
"Save Outdoor Sculpture!"
] |
|
17052_T | Lapham Memorial | Focus on Lapham Memorial and analyze the Other memorial. | Another memorial tablet in honor of Increase A. Lapham is at Lapham Peak in Waukesha county. It was unveiled in 1917. | [
"Lapham Peak",
"Increase A. Lapham"
] |
|
17052_NT | Lapham Memorial | Focus on this artwork and analyze the Other memorial. | Another memorial tablet in honor of Increase A. Lapham is at Lapham Peak in Waukesha county. It was unveiled in 1917. | [
"Lapham Peak",
"Increase A. Lapham"
] |
|
17053_T | Count Lepic and His Daughters | In Count Lepic and His Daughters, how is the abstract discussed? | Ludovic Lepic and His Daughters (French: Ludovic Lepic et ses filles) is an oil painting on canvas completed ca. 1871 by the French artist Edgar Degas. The painting depicts Ludovic-Napoléon Lepic with his young daughters, Eylau and Jeanine. Degas also depicted Ludovic Lepic in the painting Place de la Concorde.On February 10, 2008, the painting was stolen from Foundation E.G. Bührle in Zürich, Switzerland. It was recovered in April 2012 with slight damage. | [
"stolen",
"Edgar Degas",
"Foundation E.G. Bührle",
"Ludovic-Napoléon Lepic",
"Zürich",
"Place de la Concorde",
"Switzerland"
] |
|
17053_NT | Count Lepic and His Daughters | In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed? | Ludovic Lepic and His Daughters (French: Ludovic Lepic et ses filles) is an oil painting on canvas completed ca. 1871 by the French artist Edgar Degas. The painting depicts Ludovic-Napoléon Lepic with his young daughters, Eylau and Jeanine. Degas also depicted Ludovic Lepic in the painting Place de la Concorde.On February 10, 2008, the painting was stolen from Foundation E.G. Bührle in Zürich, Switzerland. It was recovered in April 2012 with slight damage. | [
"stolen",
"Edgar Degas",
"Foundation E.G. Bührle",
"Ludovic-Napoléon Lepic",
"Zürich",
"Place de la Concorde",
"Switzerland"
] |
|
17054_T | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | Focus on Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) and explore the abstract. | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation is a 1480s painting by the German-born citizen of Bruges, Hans Memling. It is on display in the Musée des Beaux-Arts of Strasbourg, France. Its inventory number is 185. | [
"France",
"Musée des Beaux-Arts",
"Hans Memling",
"Strasbourg",
"German",
"Vanity",
"Bruges"
] |
|
17054_NT | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract. | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation is a 1480s painting by the German-born citizen of Bruges, Hans Memling. It is on display in the Musée des Beaux-Arts of Strasbourg, France. Its inventory number is 185. | [
"France",
"Musée des Beaux-Arts",
"Hans Memling",
"Strasbourg",
"German",
"Vanity",
"Bruges"
] |
|
17055_T | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | Focus on Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) and explain the Overview. | The work consists of six isolated panels which had originally been arranged recto-verso as pairs and were sawn apart at some point before 1890. Neither the order of the panels from left to right, nor the coupling of the pairs of paintings, is known with certainty; and because of the work's theological content, it is disputed if it was designed as a triptych or as a polyptych. Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation has generally risen and still raises more questions among art historians than almost any other work of its century, or any century.
As it exists now, Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation consists of a narrative sequence (Vanity is followed by Death, which is followed either by Hell or by the Redemption through Jesus; this is framed by a general memento mori and a particular coat of arms). But this sequence may well be incomplete or not entirely reflect the intended purpose: for instance, Vanity may also be a depiction of Luxuria, etc. | [
"Jesus",
"Hell",
"coat of arms",
"Death",
"Vanity",
"theological",
"polyptych",
"memento mori",
"recto-verso",
"triptych",
"Luxuria",
"Redemption"
] |
|
17055_NT | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | Focus on this artwork and explain the Overview. | The work consists of six isolated panels which had originally been arranged recto-verso as pairs and were sawn apart at some point before 1890. Neither the order of the panels from left to right, nor the coupling of the pairs of paintings, is known with certainty; and because of the work's theological content, it is disputed if it was designed as a triptych or as a polyptych. Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation has generally risen and still raises more questions among art historians than almost any other work of its century, or any century.
As it exists now, Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation consists of a narrative sequence (Vanity is followed by Death, which is followed either by Hell or by the Redemption through Jesus; this is framed by a general memento mori and a particular coat of arms). But this sequence may well be incomplete or not entirely reflect the intended purpose: for instance, Vanity may also be a depiction of Luxuria, etc. | [
"Jesus",
"Hell",
"coat of arms",
"Death",
"Vanity",
"theological",
"polyptych",
"memento mori",
"recto-verso",
"triptych",
"Luxuria",
"Redemption"
] |
|
17056_T | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | Explore the Question of attribution of this artwork, Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling). | The attribution of the work has been disputed. In 1890, Wilhelm von Bode bought it in Florence, Italy, as a Memling, but as early as 1892, he attributed it to Memling's contemporary, Simon Marmion. This attribution was kept by some specialists, while several others – such as Hugo von Tschudi, Georges Hulin de Loo, and Max J. Friedlander – maintained that it was indeed a Memling; of the late period and of very high quality as far as Friedlander was concerned. The debate later shifted on the question of authenticity: it was questioned if it was a painting by Memling himself, or rather by an assistant, a follower, or an imitator. The question has been settled since 1994, when thorough examination showed that it was indeed a genuine work by Hans Memling himself. | [
"Hans Memling",
"Florence",
"Hugo von Tschudi",
"Florence, Italy",
"Simon Marmion",
"Max J. Friedlander",
"Wilhelm von Bode",
"Georges Hulin de Loo"
] |
|
17056_NT | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | Explore the Question of attribution of this artwork. | The attribution of the work has been disputed. In 1890, Wilhelm von Bode bought it in Florence, Italy, as a Memling, but as early as 1892, he attributed it to Memling's contemporary, Simon Marmion. This attribution was kept by some specialists, while several others – such as Hugo von Tschudi, Georges Hulin de Loo, and Max J. Friedlander – maintained that it was indeed a Memling; of the late period and of very high quality as far as Friedlander was concerned. The debate later shifted on the question of authenticity: it was questioned if it was a painting by Memling himself, or rather by an assistant, a follower, or an imitator. The question has been settled since 1994, when thorough examination showed that it was indeed a genuine work by Hans Memling himself. | [
"Hans Memling",
"Florence",
"Hugo von Tschudi",
"Florence, Italy",
"Simon Marmion",
"Max J. Friedlander",
"Wilhelm von Bode",
"Georges Hulin de Loo"
] |
|
17057_T | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | Focus on Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) and discuss the Question of destination. | The destination of the work has been just as disputed. The coat of arms had been attributed to several Italian families, until Hulin de Loo identified it as the Loiani family crest. The work may have been commissioned by Giovanni d′Antonio Loiano, from Bologna, who had married a Flemish woman. It remains unresolved if the work was as it is now, i.e. a triptych, or if a recto-verso panel has been lost and the work had originally been a polyptych. This hypothesis in turn raises the question of the painterly subjects on either side of the lost panel. Moreover, as it could be closed (as a triptych), or folded (as a polyptych), there is no certainty as to the order in which the paintings were shown in either state. Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation was probably used for private devotion, as a domestic altarpiece that could also be carried with its owner. | [
"Bologna",
"coat of arms",
"Vanity",
"altarpiece",
"polyptych",
"recto-verso",
"triptych",
"Flemish"
] |
|
17057_NT | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | Focus on this artwork and discuss the Question of destination. | The destination of the work has been just as disputed. The coat of arms had been attributed to several Italian families, until Hulin de Loo identified it as the Loiani family crest. The work may have been commissioned by Giovanni d′Antonio Loiano, from Bologna, who had married a Flemish woman. It remains unresolved if the work was as it is now, i.e. a triptych, or if a recto-verso panel has been lost and the work had originally been a polyptych. This hypothesis in turn raises the question of the painterly subjects on either side of the lost panel. Moreover, as it could be closed (as a triptych), or folded (as a polyptych), there is no certainty as to the order in which the paintings were shown in either state. Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation was probably used for private devotion, as a domestic altarpiece that could also be carried with its owner. | [
"Bologna",
"coat of arms",
"Vanity",
"altarpiece",
"polyptych",
"recto-verso",
"triptych",
"Flemish"
] |
|
17058_T | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | How does Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) elucidate its Question of iconography? | The iconographic program of Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation is complex, although not impenetrably so, hence the title given to the work. The proponents of the theory that a fourth recto-verso panel is missing suggest that it could have shown the Virgin Mary (responding to her son depicted as a Salvator Mundi but also with attributes of a Christ in Majesty, such as the crown) on one side, and Adam on the other (responding to Eve, depicted as the allegorical figure of Vanity). The purposes of Death, Hell, Memento mori, and the coat of arms, are quite clear, although their position is not. Vanity (which may also represent Luxuria) and Death share aesthetic and thematic parallels, not least in the very prominent genital area, a fact that has prompted the tenants of the triptych hypothesis to dismiss the idea that Vanity/Luxuria should have been paired with another painting instead. On the other hand, the probable pairing of Christ with Hell is theologically untenable; as in Memling’s own Last Judgment, depictions of Hell are generally paired with depictions of Heaven.Satan's face on the belly (Bauchgesicht) has been noticed by art historians, as has Vanity's/Luxuria's eroticism. | [
"Bauchgesicht",
"Christ in Majesty",
"Last Judgment",
"Hell",
"coat of arms",
"Death",
"iconographic",
"the Virgin Mary",
"Heaven",
"Vanity",
"theological",
"Eve",
"allegorical figure",
"Satan",
"recto-verso",
"triptych",
"Salvator Mundi",
"Luxuria",
"Adam",
"Memento mori"
] |
|
17058_NT | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | How does this artwork elucidate its Question of iconography? | The iconographic program of Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation is complex, although not impenetrably so, hence the title given to the work. The proponents of the theory that a fourth recto-verso panel is missing suggest that it could have shown the Virgin Mary (responding to her son depicted as a Salvator Mundi but also with attributes of a Christ in Majesty, such as the crown) on one side, and Adam on the other (responding to Eve, depicted as the allegorical figure of Vanity). The purposes of Death, Hell, Memento mori, and the coat of arms, are quite clear, although their position is not. Vanity (which may also represent Luxuria) and Death share aesthetic and thematic parallels, not least in the very prominent genital area, a fact that has prompted the tenants of the triptych hypothesis to dismiss the idea that Vanity/Luxuria should have been paired with another painting instead. On the other hand, the probable pairing of Christ with Hell is theologically untenable; as in Memling’s own Last Judgment, depictions of Hell are generally paired with depictions of Heaven.Satan's face on the belly (Bauchgesicht) has been noticed by art historians, as has Vanity's/Luxuria's eroticism. | [
"Bauchgesicht",
"Christ in Majesty",
"Last Judgment",
"Hell",
"coat of arms",
"Death",
"iconographic",
"the Virgin Mary",
"Heaven",
"Vanity",
"theological",
"Eve",
"allegorical figure",
"Satan",
"recto-verso",
"triptych",
"Salvator Mundi",
"Luxuria",
"Adam",
"Memento mori"
] |
|
17059_T | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | In the context of Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling), analyze the Possible pairings of the Question of iconography. | The following pairings have been suggested as being the most plausible:As a triptych:Memento mori – Hell
Vanity/Luxuria – Christ in Majesty/Salvator Mundi
Death – Coat of armsAs a polyptych:Memento mori – Hell
Christ in Majesty/Salvator Mundi – Vanity/Luxuria
Virgin Mary – unknown subject [the missing panel]
Coat of arms – DeathIn both cases, only Vanity and Death appear together on the same side, while Hell and Christ, and Hell and Death, and even Memento mori and Coat of arms appear once on the same side, and once on opposite sides. | [
"Christ in Majesty",
"Coat of arms",
"Hell",
"Death",
"Vanity",
"polyptych",
"triptych",
"Salvator Mundi",
"Luxuria",
"Memento mori"
] |
|
17059_NT | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | In the context of this artwork, analyze the Possible pairings of the Question of iconography. | The following pairings have been suggested as being the most plausible:As a triptych:Memento mori – Hell
Vanity/Luxuria – Christ in Majesty/Salvator Mundi
Death – Coat of armsAs a polyptych:Memento mori – Hell
Christ in Majesty/Salvator Mundi – Vanity/Luxuria
Virgin Mary – unknown subject [the missing panel]
Coat of arms – DeathIn both cases, only Vanity and Death appear together on the same side, while Hell and Christ, and Hell and Death, and even Memento mori and Coat of arms appear once on the same side, and once on opposite sides. | [
"Christ in Majesty",
"Coat of arms",
"Hell",
"Death",
"Vanity",
"polyptych",
"triptych",
"Salvator Mundi",
"Luxuria",
"Memento mori"
] |
|
17060_T | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | In Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling), how is the In popular culture discussed? | The Hell panel was used as the cover art for Bruce Dickinson's 2005 metal album Tyranny of Souls. | [
"Hell",
"Tyranny of Souls"
] |
|
17060_NT | Earthly Vanity and Divine Salvation (Memling) | In this artwork, how is the In popular culture discussed? | The Hell panel was used as the cover art for Bruce Dickinson's 2005 metal album Tyranny of Souls. | [
"Hell",
"Tyranny of Souls"
] |
|
17061_T | The Eye of Mexico | Focus on The Eye of Mexico and explore the abstract. | The Eye of Mexico (Spanish: El Ojo de México) is an outdoor digital sculpture in Mexico City. It is located in Ampliación Granada, Miguel Hidalgo, at the mixed-use development Neuchâtel Polanco, developed by the Canadian real estate company Ivanhoé Cambridge. The artwork was created by the Turkish artist Ferdi Alıcı and it was selected from among 350 proposals from artists from 35 countries.
The project for The Eye of Mexico was developed by MIRA, a real estate investment and development company, and MASSIVart, a creative consulting agency. According to MIRA, upon its inauguration it became the first artwork in Latin America to use artificial intelligence (AI). The sculpture can read environmental and urban data using AI algorithms and transform the results into videos related to arts, science and technology. The ring was inaugurated on 20 May 2022 and it is 10 meters (33 ft) high and 3 meters (9.8 ft) wide. | [
"Miguel Hidalgo",
"Ampliación Granada",
"Ivanhoé Cambridge",
"artificial intelligence",
"Mexico City",
"mixed-use development"
] |
|
17061_NT | The Eye of Mexico | Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract. | The Eye of Mexico (Spanish: El Ojo de México) is an outdoor digital sculpture in Mexico City. It is located in Ampliación Granada, Miguel Hidalgo, at the mixed-use development Neuchâtel Polanco, developed by the Canadian real estate company Ivanhoé Cambridge. The artwork was created by the Turkish artist Ferdi Alıcı and it was selected from among 350 proposals from artists from 35 countries.
The project for The Eye of Mexico was developed by MIRA, a real estate investment and development company, and MASSIVart, a creative consulting agency. According to MIRA, upon its inauguration it became the first artwork in Latin America to use artificial intelligence (AI). The sculpture can read environmental and urban data using AI algorithms and transform the results into videos related to arts, science and technology. The ring was inaugurated on 20 May 2022 and it is 10 meters (33 ft) high and 3 meters (9.8 ft) wide. | [
"Miguel Hidalgo",
"Ampliación Granada",
"Ivanhoé Cambridge",
"artificial intelligence",
"Mexico City",
"mixed-use development"
] |
|
17062_T | Adoration of the Magi (Castello) | Focus on Adoration of the Magi (Castello) and explain the abstract. | Adoration of the Magi is a circa 1650 religious painting by the Italian Baroque artist from Genoa, Valerio Castello. It is now in the Musée des Beaux-Arts of Strasbourg, France. Its inventory number is 1830.Adoration of the Magi is today considered as a brilliant example of Ligurian Baroque, and three documented ancient copies have been identified. Strangely enough, the painting had an utterly inconspicuous existence until 2004, when it was identified as a major work by Castello – it had been passed as a "Dutch painting with Italian influences" since 1949. The Strasbourg museum also owns an Adoration of the Magi by Castello's disciple and assistant Bartolomeo Biscaino; that work had been attributed to Castello until 1959. | [
"Valerio Castello",
"Genoa",
"Liguria",
"Dutch",
"Musée des Beaux-Arts",
"religious",
"Castello",
"Strasbourg",
"Bartolomeo Biscaino",
"Italian Baroque art",
"painting",
"Adoration of the Magi"
] |
|
17062_NT | Adoration of the Magi (Castello) | Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract. | Adoration of the Magi is a circa 1650 religious painting by the Italian Baroque artist from Genoa, Valerio Castello. It is now in the Musée des Beaux-Arts of Strasbourg, France. Its inventory number is 1830.Adoration of the Magi is today considered as a brilliant example of Ligurian Baroque, and three documented ancient copies have been identified. Strangely enough, the painting had an utterly inconspicuous existence until 2004, when it was identified as a major work by Castello – it had been passed as a "Dutch painting with Italian influences" since 1949. The Strasbourg museum also owns an Adoration of the Magi by Castello's disciple and assistant Bartolomeo Biscaino; that work had been attributed to Castello until 1959. | [
"Valerio Castello",
"Genoa",
"Liguria",
"Dutch",
"Musée des Beaux-Arts",
"religious",
"Castello",
"Strasbourg",
"Bartolomeo Biscaino",
"Italian Baroque art",
"painting",
"Adoration of the Magi"
] |
|
17063_T | The Harbor | Explore the abstract of this artwork, The Harbor. | The Harbor (French: Le Port, also known as The Port or simply Marine), is a painting by the French artist Jean Metzinger. The work was exhibited in the spring of 1912 at the Salon des Indépendants in Paris, and at the Salon de La Section d'Or, Galerie La Boétie, October 1912, Paris, (no. 117 of the catalogue, entitled Marine, collection Mme L. Ricou). Le Port was reproduced a few months later in the first major text on Cubism entitled Du "Cubisme", written in 1912 by Jean Metzinger and Albert Gleizes, published by Eugène Figuière Editeurs the same year. The Harbor was subsequently reproduced in The Cubist Painters, Aesthetic Meditations (Les Peintres cubistes, Méditations Esthétiques), written by Guillaume Apollinaire, published by Figuière in 1913 (collection Mme L. Ricou). At the Salon des Indépendants of 1912, Apollinaire had noticed the classical Ingresque qualities of Metzinger's Le Port, and suggested that it deserved to be hung in the Musée du Luxembourg's modern art collection. The dimensions and current whereabouts of Le Port are unknown. | [
"Jean Metzinger",
"Section d'Or",
"Du \"Cubisme\"",
"The Cubist Painters, Aesthetic Meditations",
"Ingresque",
"Cubism",
"Musée du Luxembourg",
"The Cubist Painters, Aesthetic Meditations (Les Peintres cubistes, Méditations Esthétiques)",
"Guillaume Apollinaire",
"Albert Gleizes",
"Salon des Indépendants"
] |
|
17063_NT | The Harbor | Explore the abstract of this artwork. | The Harbor (French: Le Port, also known as The Port or simply Marine), is a painting by the French artist Jean Metzinger. The work was exhibited in the spring of 1912 at the Salon des Indépendants in Paris, and at the Salon de La Section d'Or, Galerie La Boétie, October 1912, Paris, (no. 117 of the catalogue, entitled Marine, collection Mme L. Ricou). Le Port was reproduced a few months later in the first major text on Cubism entitled Du "Cubisme", written in 1912 by Jean Metzinger and Albert Gleizes, published by Eugène Figuière Editeurs the same year. The Harbor was subsequently reproduced in The Cubist Painters, Aesthetic Meditations (Les Peintres cubistes, Méditations Esthétiques), written by Guillaume Apollinaire, published by Figuière in 1913 (collection Mme L. Ricou). At the Salon des Indépendants of 1912, Apollinaire had noticed the classical Ingresque qualities of Metzinger's Le Port, and suggested that it deserved to be hung in the Musée du Luxembourg's modern art collection. The dimensions and current whereabouts of Le Port are unknown. | [
"Jean Metzinger",
"Section d'Or",
"Du \"Cubisme\"",
"The Cubist Painters, Aesthetic Meditations",
"Ingresque",
"Cubism",
"Musée du Luxembourg",
"The Cubist Painters, Aesthetic Meditations (Les Peintres cubistes, Méditations Esthétiques)",
"Guillaume Apollinaire",
"Albert Gleizes",
"Salon des Indépendants"
] |
|
17064_T | The Harbor | Focus on The Harbor and discuss the Description. | Le Port, probably an oil on canvas, depicts a complex harbor scene with sailboats, surrounding buildings and shuttered windows. On the distant horizon can be seen two larger boats; the one on the right perhaps a steam ship, the other with a large mast. Here Metzinger is almost exclusively concerned with principles of pictorial construction: the interplay of horizontals, diagonals, verticals and curves. The horizon is curved spherically.
Rather than depicting The Harbor from one classical point of view, Metzinger has used a 'mobile perspective' to portray the subject from a variety of locations and from different angles at various moments in time. The images captured from multiple spatial view-points and at successive time intervals are all shown simultaneously on one canvas.Metzinger and Gleizes wrote with reference to non-Euclidean geometry in Du "Cubisme", the manifesto in which The Harbor was selected, amongst other paintings, to represent the Cubist methodology. It was argued in the text that Cubism itself was not based on any geometrical theory but that non-Euclidean geometry corresponded better than classical Euclidean geometry to what the Cubsists were doing. The essential was in the understanding of space other than by the classical method of perspective.The topology chosen for The Harbor resembles that of a higher-dimensional Riemannian manifold, as opposed to a standard Euclidean 3-space. This is a space of constant positive Gaussian curvature. The boats on the distant horizon are traveling a geodesic path of positive intrinsic curvature. All of the objects represented by Metzinger in this painting are embedded in the non-Euclidean Riemannian (or pseudo-Riemannian) manifold of constant positive Gaussian curvature. The surface depicted is neither locally or globally flat. But Metzinger goes further than the simple geometrical model of Gauss or Riemann by using the faceting of form associated with a robust form of analytic Cubism. In addition, each element or constituent of the painting partakes in the overall scheme of things subjectively, in each individual's mental realization (according to Roger Allard, 1910). Metzinger goes well beyond a non-Euclidean perspective with multiple points of view, beyond the technical innovations of analytical Cubism. He penetrates to its intellectual core: "an art capable of synthesizing a reality in the mind of the observer". (Daniel Robbins, 1985)The reconstruction of the total image was left to the creative intuition of the observer. The spectator now played an active role in the Cubist process. The sum of the parts of which the painting is composed now resides in the mind of the viewer. The dynamism of form implicit or explicit in the quantitative and qualitative properties of the work, set in motion by the artist who chose the multiple view points, could be reassembled and understood in an interactive dynamic process.
"But we cannot enjoy in isolation" wrote the two principle theorists of Du "Cubisme", "we wish to dazzle others with that which we daily snatch from the world of sense, and in return we wish others to show us their trophies."This reciprocity between the artist and the public is perhaps one of the reasons Metzinger felt the need to include elements of the real world into his paintings of the period, untouched by the wrath of total abstraction. "The reminiscence of natural forms cannot be absolutely banished; not yet, at all events" wrote Metzinger and Gleizes in 1912. Art, to them, could not "be raised to the level of a pure effusion at the first step." | [
"topology",
"Daniel Robbins",
"Euclidean geometry",
"Du \"Cubisme\"",
"intrinsic curvature",
"Roger Allard",
"Cubism",
"non-Euclidean geometry",
"Riemannian manifold",
"Gaussian curvature",
"geodesic",
"Euclidean 3-space"
] |
|
17064_NT | The Harbor | Focus on this artwork and discuss the Description. | Le Port, probably an oil on canvas, depicts a complex harbor scene with sailboats, surrounding buildings and shuttered windows. On the distant horizon can be seen two larger boats; the one on the right perhaps a steam ship, the other with a large mast. Here Metzinger is almost exclusively concerned with principles of pictorial construction: the interplay of horizontals, diagonals, verticals and curves. The horizon is curved spherically.
Rather than depicting The Harbor from one classical point of view, Metzinger has used a 'mobile perspective' to portray the subject from a variety of locations and from different angles at various moments in time. The images captured from multiple spatial view-points and at successive time intervals are all shown simultaneously on one canvas.Metzinger and Gleizes wrote with reference to non-Euclidean geometry in Du "Cubisme", the manifesto in which The Harbor was selected, amongst other paintings, to represent the Cubist methodology. It was argued in the text that Cubism itself was not based on any geometrical theory but that non-Euclidean geometry corresponded better than classical Euclidean geometry to what the Cubsists were doing. The essential was in the understanding of space other than by the classical method of perspective.The topology chosen for The Harbor resembles that of a higher-dimensional Riemannian manifold, as opposed to a standard Euclidean 3-space. This is a space of constant positive Gaussian curvature. The boats on the distant horizon are traveling a geodesic path of positive intrinsic curvature. All of the objects represented by Metzinger in this painting are embedded in the non-Euclidean Riemannian (or pseudo-Riemannian) manifold of constant positive Gaussian curvature. The surface depicted is neither locally or globally flat. But Metzinger goes further than the simple geometrical model of Gauss or Riemann by using the faceting of form associated with a robust form of analytic Cubism. In addition, each element or constituent of the painting partakes in the overall scheme of things subjectively, in each individual's mental realization (according to Roger Allard, 1910). Metzinger goes well beyond a non-Euclidean perspective with multiple points of view, beyond the technical innovations of analytical Cubism. He penetrates to its intellectual core: "an art capable of synthesizing a reality in the mind of the observer". (Daniel Robbins, 1985)The reconstruction of the total image was left to the creative intuition of the observer. The spectator now played an active role in the Cubist process. The sum of the parts of which the painting is composed now resides in the mind of the viewer. The dynamism of form implicit or explicit in the quantitative and qualitative properties of the work, set in motion by the artist who chose the multiple view points, could be reassembled and understood in an interactive dynamic process.
"But we cannot enjoy in isolation" wrote the two principle theorists of Du "Cubisme", "we wish to dazzle others with that which we daily snatch from the world of sense, and in return we wish others to show us their trophies."This reciprocity between the artist and the public is perhaps one of the reasons Metzinger felt the need to include elements of the real world into his paintings of the period, untouched by the wrath of total abstraction. "The reminiscence of natural forms cannot be absolutely banished; not yet, at all events" wrote Metzinger and Gleizes in 1912. Art, to them, could not "be raised to the level of a pure effusion at the first step." | [
"topology",
"Daniel Robbins",
"Euclidean geometry",
"Du \"Cubisme\"",
"intrinsic curvature",
"Roger Allard",
"Cubism",
"non-Euclidean geometry",
"Riemannian manifold",
"Gaussian curvature",
"geodesic",
"Euclidean 3-space"
] |
|
17065_T | The Harbor | How does The Harbor elucidate its Salon des Indépendants, 1912? | At the 1912 Salon des Indépendants Jean Metzinger exhibited Le Port (The Harbor) and La Femme au Cheval (Woman with a horse) — Albert Gleizes exhibited his monumental Les Baigneuses (The Bathers) (no. 1347) — Marcel Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 was listed in the catalogue (n. 1001) but was supposedly withdrawn — Roger de La Fresnaye exhibited Artillerie (no. 1235) — Robert Delaunay showed his immense Ville de Paris (no. 868) — Fernand Léger showed La Noce — Henri Le Fauconnier, Le Chasseur (The Huntsman) — and the newcomer Juan Gris exhibiting in a major Salon for the first time, showed his Portrait of Picasso.The art critic Olivier-Hourcade writes of this exhibition in 1912 and its relation to the creation of a new French school: Metzinger with his Port, Delaunay with Paris, Gleizes with his Baigneuses, are close to this real and magnificent result, this victory comes from several centuries: the creation of a school of painting, 'French' and absolutely independent.Roger Allard's reviewed the 1912 Salon des Indépendants in the March–April 1912 issue of La Revue de France et des Pays, noting Metzinger's 'refined choice of colors' and the 'precious rarity' of the painting's 'matière'. André Salmon too, in his review, noted Metzinger's 'refined use of color' in La Femme au Cheval and praised its 'French grace', while noting Metzinger 'illuminated a cubist figure with the virtues of a smile'.These early researches into Cubism were, in the words of Albert Gleizes, 'neither an alchemy nor a system. They were just the normal evolution of an art that was mobile like life itself.' | [
"André Salmon",
"Jean Metzinger",
"La Femme au Cheval (Woman with a horse)",
"Juan Gris",
"Robert Delaunay",
"Fernand Léger",
"Roger Allard",
"La Femme au Cheval",
"Cubism",
"Henri Le Fauconnier",
"Marcel Duchamp",
"Roger de La Fresnaye",
"Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2",
"Albert Gleizes",
"Les Baigneuses (The Bathers)",
"Salon des Indépendants"
] |
|
17065_NT | The Harbor | How does this artwork elucidate its Salon des Indépendants, 1912? | At the 1912 Salon des Indépendants Jean Metzinger exhibited Le Port (The Harbor) and La Femme au Cheval (Woman with a horse) — Albert Gleizes exhibited his monumental Les Baigneuses (The Bathers) (no. 1347) — Marcel Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 was listed in the catalogue (n. 1001) but was supposedly withdrawn — Roger de La Fresnaye exhibited Artillerie (no. 1235) — Robert Delaunay showed his immense Ville de Paris (no. 868) — Fernand Léger showed La Noce — Henri Le Fauconnier, Le Chasseur (The Huntsman) — and the newcomer Juan Gris exhibiting in a major Salon for the first time, showed his Portrait of Picasso.The art critic Olivier-Hourcade writes of this exhibition in 1912 and its relation to the creation of a new French school: Metzinger with his Port, Delaunay with Paris, Gleizes with his Baigneuses, are close to this real and magnificent result, this victory comes from several centuries: the creation of a school of painting, 'French' and absolutely independent.Roger Allard's reviewed the 1912 Salon des Indépendants in the March–April 1912 issue of La Revue de France et des Pays, noting Metzinger's 'refined choice of colors' and the 'precious rarity' of the painting's 'matière'. André Salmon too, in his review, noted Metzinger's 'refined use of color' in La Femme au Cheval and praised its 'French grace', while noting Metzinger 'illuminated a cubist figure with the virtues of a smile'.These early researches into Cubism were, in the words of Albert Gleizes, 'neither an alchemy nor a system. They were just the normal evolution of an art that was mobile like life itself.' | [
"André Salmon",
"Jean Metzinger",
"La Femme au Cheval (Woman with a horse)",
"Juan Gris",
"Robert Delaunay",
"Fernand Léger",
"Roger Allard",
"La Femme au Cheval",
"Cubism",
"Henri Le Fauconnier",
"Marcel Duchamp",
"Roger de La Fresnaye",
"Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2",
"Albert Gleizes",
"Les Baigneuses (The Bathers)",
"Salon des Indépendants"
] |
|
17066_T | Le ruisseau noir | In Le ruisseau noir, how is the History discussed? | This picture was included in the Exposition Universelle of 1867, and was bought from the artist in the same year by the Comte de Nieuwerkerque, Director of Museums, for Napoleon III, at the price of 2000 French francs. It was part of the Emperor's personal property, and was allotted to the Louvre by the Tribunal de la Seine, along with other paintings, on 12 February 1879. In 1881, it was exhibited in the Luxembourg, with the title Le puits noir (The Black Ravine), which is really the name of another work painted in 1869.The landscape is currently housed and exhibited at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, and represents a gorge, a ravine through which runs a winding stream, its bed littered with rocks, between steep walls covered with wild vegetation. The stream depicted is the Loue, a capricious creek flowing through the village of Ornans, where Courbet was born. The artist seems to have returned to this spot several times: it can be recognised in a number of his paintings
Of this landscape, Courbet wrote:It is perhaps the best I have ever painted; it shows the Loue walled up between vast boulders of mossy rock, with thick sunlit foliage in the background.
Courbet loved to seek out some unspoilt corner in these lonely gorges, where the damp atmosphere conveys the impression of a strange world from which the primordial waters have only just receded. In this work, in which one senses the enthusiasm of the artist, Courbet's technique is at its peak of perfection. He has only used the brush in the background shadows; elsewhere the painting has been done with the palette knife. Courbet crushes his pigments and spreads them diagonally with his knife, thus letting underlying wads of paint show through: this creates the effect of transparency and depth as rich as those obtained by means of glazes in the work of earlier artists. His splendid greens evoke the luxuriance of a semi-aquatic world where vegetation runs riot. | [
"palette knife",
"Luxembourg",
"French",
"Musée d'Orsay",
"Seine",
"Ornans",
"Exposition Universelle of 1867",
"French francs",
"French franc",
"Loue",
"Louvre",
"Tribunal",
"Comte de Nieuwerkerque",
"Paris",
"Napoleon III"
] |
|
17066_NT | Le ruisseau noir | In this artwork, how is the History discussed? | This picture was included in the Exposition Universelle of 1867, and was bought from the artist in the same year by the Comte de Nieuwerkerque, Director of Museums, for Napoleon III, at the price of 2000 French francs. It was part of the Emperor's personal property, and was allotted to the Louvre by the Tribunal de la Seine, along with other paintings, on 12 February 1879. In 1881, it was exhibited in the Luxembourg, with the title Le puits noir (The Black Ravine), which is really the name of another work painted in 1869.The landscape is currently housed and exhibited at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, and represents a gorge, a ravine through which runs a winding stream, its bed littered with rocks, between steep walls covered with wild vegetation. The stream depicted is the Loue, a capricious creek flowing through the village of Ornans, where Courbet was born. The artist seems to have returned to this spot several times: it can be recognised in a number of his paintings
Of this landscape, Courbet wrote:It is perhaps the best I have ever painted; it shows the Loue walled up between vast boulders of mossy rock, with thick sunlit foliage in the background.
Courbet loved to seek out some unspoilt corner in these lonely gorges, where the damp atmosphere conveys the impression of a strange world from which the primordial waters have only just receded. In this work, in which one senses the enthusiasm of the artist, Courbet's technique is at its peak of perfection. He has only used the brush in the background shadows; elsewhere the painting has been done with the palette knife. Courbet crushes his pigments and spreads them diagonally with his knife, thus letting underlying wads of paint show through: this creates the effect of transparency and depth as rich as those obtained by means of glazes in the work of earlier artists. His splendid greens evoke the luxuriance of a semi-aquatic world where vegetation runs riot. | [
"palette knife",
"Luxembourg",
"French",
"Musée d'Orsay",
"Seine",
"Ornans",
"Exposition Universelle of 1867",
"French francs",
"French franc",
"Loue",
"Louvre",
"Tribunal",
"Comte de Nieuwerkerque",
"Paris",
"Napoleon III"
] |
|
17067_T | The School of Athens | Focus on The School of Athens and explore the abstract. | The School of Athens (Italian: Scuola di Atene) is a fresco by the Italian Renaissance artist Raphael. The fresco was painted between 1509 and 1511 as a part of Raphael's commission to decorate the rooms now known as the Stanze di Raffaello, in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican. It depicts a congregation of philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists from Ancient Greece, including Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Heraclitus and Zarathustra the Iranian prophet. The Italian artists Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo are also featured in the painting, shown as Plato and Heraclitus respectively.
The painting notably features accurate perspective projection, a defining characteristic of the Renaissance era. Raphael learned perspective from Leonardo, whose role as Plato is central in the painting. The themes of the painting, such as the rebirth of Ancient Greek philosophy and culture in Europe (along with Raphael's work) were inspired by Leonardo's individual pursuits in theatre, engineering, optics, geometry, physiology, anatomy, history, architecture and art.The School of Athens is regarded as one of Raphael's best known works, and has been described as "Raphael's masterpiece and the perfect embodiment of the classical spirit of the Renaissance". | [
"Raphael",
"Apostolic Palace",
"Aristotle",
"optics",
"Leonardo da Vinci",
"Ancient Greece",
"fresco",
"perspective projection",
"Stanze di Raffaello",
"physiology",
"geometry",
"Italian Renaissance",
"anatomy",
"Plato",
"Ancient Greek philosophy",
"Vatican",
"engineering",
"philosophy",
"Michelangelo",
"Archimedes",
"Zarathustra",
"Heraclitus",
"Pythagoras"
] |
|
17067_NT | The School of Athens | Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract. | The School of Athens (Italian: Scuola di Atene) is a fresco by the Italian Renaissance artist Raphael. The fresco was painted between 1509 and 1511 as a part of Raphael's commission to decorate the rooms now known as the Stanze di Raffaello, in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican. It depicts a congregation of philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists from Ancient Greece, including Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Heraclitus and Zarathustra the Iranian prophet. The Italian artists Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo are also featured in the painting, shown as Plato and Heraclitus respectively.
The painting notably features accurate perspective projection, a defining characteristic of the Renaissance era. Raphael learned perspective from Leonardo, whose role as Plato is central in the painting. The themes of the painting, such as the rebirth of Ancient Greek philosophy and culture in Europe (along with Raphael's work) were inspired by Leonardo's individual pursuits in theatre, engineering, optics, geometry, physiology, anatomy, history, architecture and art.The School of Athens is regarded as one of Raphael's best known works, and has been described as "Raphael's masterpiece and the perfect embodiment of the classical spirit of the Renaissance". | [
"Raphael",
"Apostolic Palace",
"Aristotle",
"optics",
"Leonardo da Vinci",
"Ancient Greece",
"fresco",
"perspective projection",
"Stanze di Raffaello",
"physiology",
"geometry",
"Italian Renaissance",
"anatomy",
"Plato",
"Ancient Greek philosophy",
"Vatican",
"engineering",
"philosophy",
"Michelangelo",
"Archimedes",
"Zarathustra",
"Heraclitus",
"Pythagoras"
] |
|
17068_T | The School of Athens | Focus on The School of Athens and explain the Program, subject, figure identifications and interpretations. | The Stanza della Segnatura was the first of the rooms to be decorated, and The School of Athens, representing philosophy, is believed to be the third painting to be finished there, after La Disputa (Theology) on the opposite wall, and the Parnassus (Literature).The School of Athens is one of a group of four main frescoes on the walls of the Stanza (those on either side centrally interrupted by windows) that depict distinct branches of knowledge. Each theme is identified above by a separate tondo containing a majestic female figure seated in the clouds, with putti bearing the phrases: "Seek Knowledge of Causes", "Divine Inspiration", "Knowledge of Things Divine" (Disputa), "To Each What Is Due". Accordingly, the figures on the walls below exemplify philosophy, poetry (including music), theology, and justice. The traditional title is not Raphael's. The subject of the painting is actually philosophy, or at least ancient Greek philosophy, and its overhead tondo-label, "Causarum Cognitio", tells us what kind, as it appears to echo Aristotle's emphasis on wisdom as knowing why, hence knowing the causes, in Metaphysics Book I and Physics Book II. Indeed, Plato and Aristotle appear to be the central figures in the scene. However, many of the philosophers depicted sought knowledge of first causes. Many lived before Plato and Aristotle, and hardly a third were Athenians. The architecture contains Roman elements, but the general semi-circular setting having Plato and Aristotle at its centre might be alluding to Pythagoras' monad.Commentators have suggested that nearly every great ancient Greek philosopher can be found in the painting, but determining which are depicted is speculative, since Raphael made no designations outside possible likenesses, and no contemporary documents explain the painting. Compounding the problem, Raphael had to invent a system of iconography to allude to various figures for whom there were no traditional visual types. For example, while the Socrates figure is immediately recognizable from Classical busts, one of the figures alleged to be Epicurus is far removed from his standard depiction.
Aspects of the fresco other than the identities of the figures have also been variously interpreted, but few such interpretations are unanimously accepted among scholars. That the rhetorical gestures of Plato and Aristotle are kinds of pointing (to the heavens, and down to earth) is popularly accepted as likely. However, Plato's Timaeus – which is the book Raphael places in his hand – was a sophisticated treatment of space, time, and change, including the Earth, which guided mathematical sciences for over a millennium. Aristotle, with his four-elements theory, held that all change on Earth was owing to motions of the heavens. In the painting Aristotle carries his Ethics, which he denied could be reduced to a mathematical science. It is not certain how much the young Raphael knew of ancient philosophy, what guidance he might have had from people such as Bramante and whether a detailed program was dictated by his sponsor, Pope Julius II.
Nevertheless, the fresco has even recently been interpreted as an exhortation to philosophy and, in a deeper way, as a visual representation of the role of Love in elevating people toward upper knowledge, largely in consonance with contemporary theories of Marsilio Ficino and other neo-Platonic thinkers linked to Raphael.Finally, according to Giorgio Vasari, the scene includes Raphael himself, the Duke of Mantua, Zoroaster and some Evangelists.However, to Heinrich Wölfflin, "it is quite wrong to attempt interpretations of the School of Athens as an esoteric treatise ... The all-important thing was the artistic motive which expressed a physical or spiritual state, and the name of the person was a matter of indifference" in Raphael's time. Raphael's artistry then orchestrates a beautiful space, continuous with that of viewers in the Stanza, in which a great variety of human figures, each one expressing "mental states by physical actions", interact, in a "polyphony" unlike anything in earlier art, in the ongoing dialogue of Philosophy.An interpretation of the fresco relating to hidden symmetries of the figures and the star constructed by Bramante was given by Guerino Mazzola and collaborators. The main basis are two mirrored triangles on the drawing from Bramante (Euclid), which correspond to the feet positions of certain figures.Paolo Zamboni, professor of vascular surgery at the University of Ferrara, made a medical study of the painting, noting that Raphael's depiction of Michelangelo, in the role of Heraclitus, shows varicose veins in the legs. | [
"Raphael",
"Euclid",
"Aristotle",
"Ethics",
"II",
"Heinrich Wölfflin",
"Socrates",
"fresco",
"Evangelists",
"Stanza della Segnatura",
"Philosophy",
"Parnassus",
"Timaeus",
"putti",
"La Disputa",
"The Stanza della Segnatura",
"Giorgio Vasari",
"Duke of Mantua",
"Paolo Zamboni",
"monad",
"Platon",
"tondo",
"Marsilio Ficino",
"Plato",
"Bramante",
"wisdom",
"University of Ferrara",
"philosophy",
"Michelangelo",
"Zoroaster",
"Heraclitus",
"Pythagoras",
"Pope Julius II",
"Epicurus"
] |
|
17068_NT | The School of Athens | Focus on this artwork and explain the Program, subject, figure identifications and interpretations. | The Stanza della Segnatura was the first of the rooms to be decorated, and The School of Athens, representing philosophy, is believed to be the third painting to be finished there, after La Disputa (Theology) on the opposite wall, and the Parnassus (Literature).The School of Athens is one of a group of four main frescoes on the walls of the Stanza (those on either side centrally interrupted by windows) that depict distinct branches of knowledge. Each theme is identified above by a separate tondo containing a majestic female figure seated in the clouds, with putti bearing the phrases: "Seek Knowledge of Causes", "Divine Inspiration", "Knowledge of Things Divine" (Disputa), "To Each What Is Due". Accordingly, the figures on the walls below exemplify philosophy, poetry (including music), theology, and justice. The traditional title is not Raphael's. The subject of the painting is actually philosophy, or at least ancient Greek philosophy, and its overhead tondo-label, "Causarum Cognitio", tells us what kind, as it appears to echo Aristotle's emphasis on wisdom as knowing why, hence knowing the causes, in Metaphysics Book I and Physics Book II. Indeed, Plato and Aristotle appear to be the central figures in the scene. However, many of the philosophers depicted sought knowledge of first causes. Many lived before Plato and Aristotle, and hardly a third were Athenians. The architecture contains Roman elements, but the general semi-circular setting having Plato and Aristotle at its centre might be alluding to Pythagoras' monad.Commentators have suggested that nearly every great ancient Greek philosopher can be found in the painting, but determining which are depicted is speculative, since Raphael made no designations outside possible likenesses, and no contemporary documents explain the painting. Compounding the problem, Raphael had to invent a system of iconography to allude to various figures for whom there were no traditional visual types. For example, while the Socrates figure is immediately recognizable from Classical busts, one of the figures alleged to be Epicurus is far removed from his standard depiction.
Aspects of the fresco other than the identities of the figures have also been variously interpreted, but few such interpretations are unanimously accepted among scholars. That the rhetorical gestures of Plato and Aristotle are kinds of pointing (to the heavens, and down to earth) is popularly accepted as likely. However, Plato's Timaeus – which is the book Raphael places in his hand – was a sophisticated treatment of space, time, and change, including the Earth, which guided mathematical sciences for over a millennium. Aristotle, with his four-elements theory, held that all change on Earth was owing to motions of the heavens. In the painting Aristotle carries his Ethics, which he denied could be reduced to a mathematical science. It is not certain how much the young Raphael knew of ancient philosophy, what guidance he might have had from people such as Bramante and whether a detailed program was dictated by his sponsor, Pope Julius II.
Nevertheless, the fresco has even recently been interpreted as an exhortation to philosophy and, in a deeper way, as a visual representation of the role of Love in elevating people toward upper knowledge, largely in consonance with contemporary theories of Marsilio Ficino and other neo-Platonic thinkers linked to Raphael.Finally, according to Giorgio Vasari, the scene includes Raphael himself, the Duke of Mantua, Zoroaster and some Evangelists.However, to Heinrich Wölfflin, "it is quite wrong to attempt interpretations of the School of Athens as an esoteric treatise ... The all-important thing was the artistic motive which expressed a physical or spiritual state, and the name of the person was a matter of indifference" in Raphael's time. Raphael's artistry then orchestrates a beautiful space, continuous with that of viewers in the Stanza, in which a great variety of human figures, each one expressing "mental states by physical actions", interact, in a "polyphony" unlike anything in earlier art, in the ongoing dialogue of Philosophy.An interpretation of the fresco relating to hidden symmetries of the figures and the star constructed by Bramante was given by Guerino Mazzola and collaborators. The main basis are two mirrored triangles on the drawing from Bramante (Euclid), which correspond to the feet positions of certain figures.Paolo Zamboni, professor of vascular surgery at the University of Ferrara, made a medical study of the painting, noting that Raphael's depiction of Michelangelo, in the role of Heraclitus, shows varicose veins in the legs. | [
"Raphael",
"Euclid",
"Aristotle",
"Ethics",
"II",
"Heinrich Wölfflin",
"Socrates",
"fresco",
"Evangelists",
"Stanza della Segnatura",
"Philosophy",
"Parnassus",
"Timaeus",
"putti",
"La Disputa",
"The Stanza della Segnatura",
"Giorgio Vasari",
"Duke of Mantua",
"Paolo Zamboni",
"monad",
"Platon",
"tondo",
"Marsilio Ficino",
"Plato",
"Bramante",
"wisdom",
"University of Ferrara",
"philosophy",
"Michelangelo",
"Zoroaster",
"Heraclitus",
"Pythagoras",
"Pope Julius II",
"Epicurus"
] |
|
17069_T | The School of Athens | Explore the Figures about the Program, subject, figure identifications and interpretations of this artwork, The School of Athens. | The identities of some of the philosophers in the picture, such as Plato and Aristotle, are certain. Beyond that, identifications of Raphael's figures have always been hypothetical. To complicate matters, beginning from Vasari's efforts, some have received multiple identifications, not only as ancients but also as figures contemporary with Raphael. Vasari mentions portraits of the young Federico II Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, leaning over Bramante with his hands raised near the bottom right, and Raphael himself. | [
"Raphael",
"Federico II Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua",
"Aristotle",
"II",
"right",
"Duke of Mantua",
"Plato",
"Bramante"
] |
|
17069_NT | The School of Athens | Explore the Figures about the Program, subject, figure identifications and interpretations of this artwork. | The identities of some of the philosophers in the picture, such as Plato and Aristotle, are certain. Beyond that, identifications of Raphael's figures have always been hypothetical. To complicate matters, beginning from Vasari's efforts, some have received multiple identifications, not only as ancients but also as figures contemporary with Raphael. Vasari mentions portraits of the young Federico II Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, leaning over Bramante with his hands raised near the bottom right, and Raphael himself. | [
"Raphael",
"Federico II Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua",
"Aristotle",
"II",
"right",
"Duke of Mantua",
"Plato",
"Bramante"
] |
|
17070_T | The School of Athens | In the context of The School of Athens, discuss the Central figures (14 and 15) of the Program, subject, figure identifications and interpretations. | In the center of the fresco, at its architecture's central vanishing point, are the two undisputed main subjects: Plato on the left and Aristotle, his student, on the right. Both figures hold contemporary (of the time), bound copies of their books in their left hands, while gesturing with their right. Plato holds Timaeus and Aristotle holds his Nicomachean Ethics. Plato is depicted as old, grey, and bare-foot. By contrast, Aristotle, slightly ahead of him, is in mature manhood, wearing sandals and gold-trimmed robes, and the youth about them seem to look his way. In addition, these two central figures gesture along different dimensions: Plato vertically, upward along the picture-plane, into the vault above; Aristotle on the horizontal plane at right-angles to the picture-plane (hence in strong foreshortening), initiating a flow of space toward viewers.
It is popularly thought that their gestures indicate central aspects of their philosophies, for Plato, his Theory of Forms, and for Aristotle, an emphasis on concrete particulars. Many interpret the painting to show a divergence of the two philosophical schools. Plato argues a sense of timelessness whilst Aristotle looks into the physicality of life and the present realm. | [
"vanishing point",
"Aristotle",
"Ethics",
"particular",
"fresco",
"right",
"Timaeus",
"Nicomachean Ethics",
"Plato",
"Theory of Forms",
"foreshortening"
] |
|
17070_NT | The School of Athens | In the context of this artwork, discuss the Central figures (14 and 15) of the Program, subject, figure identifications and interpretations. | In the center of the fresco, at its architecture's central vanishing point, are the two undisputed main subjects: Plato on the left and Aristotle, his student, on the right. Both figures hold contemporary (of the time), bound copies of their books in their left hands, while gesturing with their right. Plato holds Timaeus and Aristotle holds his Nicomachean Ethics. Plato is depicted as old, grey, and bare-foot. By contrast, Aristotle, slightly ahead of him, is in mature manhood, wearing sandals and gold-trimmed robes, and the youth about them seem to look his way. In addition, these two central figures gesture along different dimensions: Plato vertically, upward along the picture-plane, into the vault above; Aristotle on the horizontal plane at right-angles to the picture-plane (hence in strong foreshortening), initiating a flow of space toward viewers.
It is popularly thought that their gestures indicate central aspects of their philosophies, for Plato, his Theory of Forms, and for Aristotle, an emphasis on concrete particulars. Many interpret the painting to show a divergence of the two philosophical schools. Plato argues a sense of timelessness whilst Aristotle looks into the physicality of life and the present realm. | [
"vanishing point",
"Aristotle",
"Ethics",
"particular",
"fresco",
"right",
"Timaeus",
"Nicomachean Ethics",
"Plato",
"Theory of Forms",
"foreshortening"
] |
|
17071_T | The School of Athens | In The School of Athens, how is the Setting of the Program, subject, figure identifications and interpretations elucidated? | The building is in the shape of a Greek cross, which some have suggested was intended to show a harmony between pagan philosophy and Christian theology (see Christianity and Paganism and Christian philosophy). The architecture of the building was inspired by the work of Bramante, who, according to Vasari, helped Raphael with the architecture in the picture. The resulting architecture was similar to the then new St. Peter's Basilica.There are two sculptures in the background. The one on the left is the god Apollo, god of light, archery and music, holding a lyre. The sculpture on the right is Athena, goddess of wisdom, in her Roman guise as Minerva.The main arch, above the characters, shows a meander (also known as a Greek fret or Greek key design), a design using continuous lines that repeat in a "series of rectangular bends" which originated on pottery of the Greek Geometric period and then became widely used in ancient Greek architectural friezes. | [
"Raphael",
"Christian theology",
"Paganism",
"Christian philosophy",
"right",
"Greek cross",
"meander",
"Athena",
"Bramante",
"Christianity and Paganism",
"pagan",
"wisdom",
"Apollo",
"lyre",
"St. Peter's Basilica",
"philosophy",
"Minerva"
] |
|
17071_NT | The School of Athens | In this artwork, how is the Setting of the Program, subject, figure identifications and interpretations elucidated? | The building is in the shape of a Greek cross, which some have suggested was intended to show a harmony between pagan philosophy and Christian theology (see Christianity and Paganism and Christian philosophy). The architecture of the building was inspired by the work of Bramante, who, according to Vasari, helped Raphael with the architecture in the picture. The resulting architecture was similar to the then new St. Peter's Basilica.There are two sculptures in the background. The one on the left is the god Apollo, god of light, archery and music, holding a lyre. The sculpture on the right is Athena, goddess of wisdom, in her Roman guise as Minerva.The main arch, above the characters, shows a meander (also known as a Greek fret or Greek key design), a design using continuous lines that repeat in a "series of rectangular bends" which originated on pottery of the Greek Geometric period and then became widely used in ancient Greek architectural friezes. | [
"Raphael",
"Christian theology",
"Paganism",
"Christian philosophy",
"right",
"Greek cross",
"meander",
"Athena",
"Bramante",
"Christianity and Paganism",
"pagan",
"wisdom",
"Apollo",
"lyre",
"St. Peter's Basilica",
"philosophy",
"Minerva"
] |
|
17072_T | The School of Athens | Focus on The School of Athens and analyze the Drawings and cartoon. | A number of drawings made by Raphael as studies for the School of Athens are extant. A study for the Diogenes is in the Städel in Frankfurt while a study for the group around Pythagoras, in the lower left of the painting, is preserved in the Albertina Museum in Vienna. Several drawings, showing the two men talking while walking up the steps on the right and the Medusa on Athena's shield, the statue of Athena (Minerva) and three other statues, a study for the combat scene in the relief below Apollo and "Euclid" teaching his pupils are in the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology at the University of Oxford.
The cartoon for the painting is in the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana in Milan. Missing from it is the architectural background, the figures of Heraclitus, Raphael, and Protogenes. The group of the philosophers in the left foreground strongly recall figures from Leonardo's Adoration of the Magi. Additionally, there are some engravings of the scene's sculptures by Marcantonio Raimondi; they may have been based on lost drawings by Raphael, as they do not match the fresco exactly. | [
"Frankfurt",
"Milan",
"Raphael",
"Euclid",
"Diogenes",
"Städel",
"fresco",
"Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology",
"right",
"Medusa",
"University of Oxford",
"cartoon",
"Albertina",
"Athena",
"Ashmolean Museum",
"Pinacoteca Ambrosiana",
"Apollo",
"Adoration of the Magi",
"Minerva",
"Marcantonio Raimondi",
"Protogenes",
"Heraclitus",
"Pythagoras",
"Vienna"
] |
|
17072_NT | The School of Athens | Focus on this artwork and analyze the Drawings and cartoon. | A number of drawings made by Raphael as studies for the School of Athens are extant. A study for the Diogenes is in the Städel in Frankfurt while a study for the group around Pythagoras, in the lower left of the painting, is preserved in the Albertina Museum in Vienna. Several drawings, showing the two men talking while walking up the steps on the right and the Medusa on Athena's shield, the statue of Athena (Minerva) and three other statues, a study for the combat scene in the relief below Apollo and "Euclid" teaching his pupils are in the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology at the University of Oxford.
The cartoon for the painting is in the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana in Milan. Missing from it is the architectural background, the figures of Heraclitus, Raphael, and Protogenes. The group of the philosophers in the left foreground strongly recall figures from Leonardo's Adoration of the Magi. Additionally, there are some engravings of the scene's sculptures by Marcantonio Raimondi; they may have been based on lost drawings by Raphael, as they do not match the fresco exactly. | [
"Frankfurt",
"Milan",
"Raphael",
"Euclid",
"Diogenes",
"Städel",
"fresco",
"Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology",
"right",
"Medusa",
"University of Oxford",
"cartoon",
"Albertina",
"Athena",
"Ashmolean Museum",
"Pinacoteca Ambrosiana",
"Apollo",
"Adoration of the Magi",
"Minerva",
"Marcantonio Raimondi",
"Protogenes",
"Heraclitus",
"Pythagoras",
"Vienna"
] |
|
17073_T | The School of Athens | In The School of Athens, how is the Copies discussed? | The Victoria and Albert Museum in London has a rectangular copy over 4 metres by 8 metres in size, painted on canvas, dated 1755 by Anton Raphael Mengs, on display in the eastern Cast Court.Modern reproductions of the fresco abound. For example, a full-size one can be seen in the auditorium of Old Cabell Hall at the University of Virginia. Produced in 1902 by George W. Breck to replace an older reproduction that was destroyed in a fire in 1895, it is four inches off scale from the original, because the Vatican would not allow identical reproductions of its art works.A 1689 tapestry reproduction by the Gobelins Manufactory and commissioned by Louis XIV hangs above the presiding officer's platform in the French National Assembly chamber. It had been removed in 2017 for a three-year restoration process undertaken by the Mobilier National, which manages Gobelins Manufactory.
Other reproductions include: in Königsberg Cathedral, Kaliningrad by Neide, in the University of North Carolina at Asheville's Highsmith University Student Union, and a recent one in the seminar room at Baylor University's Brooks College. A copy of Raphael's School of Athens was painted on the wall of the ceremonial stairwell that leads to the famous, main-floor reading room of the Sainte-Geneviève Library in Paris.
The two figures to the left of Plotinus were used as part of the cover art of both Use Your Illusion I and II albums of Guns N' Roses. | [
"Raphael",
"II",
"University of Virginia",
"fresco",
"Use Your Illusion I",
"Kaliningrad",
"University of North Carolina at Asheville",
"Baylor University",
"Guns N' Roses",
"Königsberg Cathedral",
"Vatican",
"Sainte-Geneviève Library",
"Gobelins Manufactory",
"Anton Raphael Mengs",
"Mobilier National",
"Victoria and Albert Museum"
] |
|
17073_NT | The School of Athens | In this artwork, how is the Copies discussed? | The Victoria and Albert Museum in London has a rectangular copy over 4 metres by 8 metres in size, painted on canvas, dated 1755 by Anton Raphael Mengs, on display in the eastern Cast Court.Modern reproductions of the fresco abound. For example, a full-size one can be seen in the auditorium of Old Cabell Hall at the University of Virginia. Produced in 1902 by George W. Breck to replace an older reproduction that was destroyed in a fire in 1895, it is four inches off scale from the original, because the Vatican would not allow identical reproductions of its art works.A 1689 tapestry reproduction by the Gobelins Manufactory and commissioned by Louis XIV hangs above the presiding officer's platform in the French National Assembly chamber. It had been removed in 2017 for a three-year restoration process undertaken by the Mobilier National, which manages Gobelins Manufactory.
Other reproductions include: in Königsberg Cathedral, Kaliningrad by Neide, in the University of North Carolina at Asheville's Highsmith University Student Union, and a recent one in the seminar room at Baylor University's Brooks College. A copy of Raphael's School of Athens was painted on the wall of the ceremonial stairwell that leads to the famous, main-floor reading room of the Sainte-Geneviève Library in Paris.
The two figures to the left of Plotinus were used as part of the cover art of both Use Your Illusion I and II albums of Guns N' Roses. | [
"Raphael",
"II",
"University of Virginia",
"fresco",
"Use Your Illusion I",
"Kaliningrad",
"University of North Carolina at Asheville",
"Baylor University",
"Guns N' Roses",
"Königsberg Cathedral",
"Vatican",
"Sainte-Geneviève Library",
"Gobelins Manufactory",
"Anton Raphael Mengs",
"Mobilier National",
"Victoria and Albert Museum"
] |
|
17074_T | The School of Athens | Focus on The School of Athens and explore the Precursors. | Similar subjects are known from antiquity, notably the Plato's Academy mosaic. It perhaps also appeared in two groups of statues from Roman Egypt. The 19th century French consul Jean-François Mimaut mentioned nine statues at the Serapeum of Alexandria holding rolls, while eleven statues were found at the Memphis Saqqara. A review of "Les Statues Ptolémaïques du Sarapieion de Memphis" ascribed them to the 3rd century, sculpted of limestone and stucco, some standing and others sitting. Rowe and Rees 1956 suggested that both statue groups share a similar subject to the Plato's Academy mosaic, with the Saqqara figures identified as: "(1) Pindare, (2) Démétrios de Phalère, (3) x (?), (4) Orphée (?) aux oiseaux, (5) Hésiode, (6) Homère, (7) x (?), (8) Protagoras, (9) Thalès, (10) Héraclite, (11) Platon, (12) Aristote (?)." However, there have been other suggestions (e.g. Mattusch 2008). Plato and Thales are commonly identified as central figures. | [
"Pindare",
"Hésiode",
"Thales",
"Memphis Saqqara",
"Pindar",
"Plato's Academy mosaic",
"Serapeum of Alexandria",
"Rowe",
"Démétrios de Phalère",
"Platon",
"Saqqara",
"Plato",
"Héraclite",
"Homère",
"Thalès",
"Protagoras",
"Rees",
"Aristote",
"Orphée"
] |
|
17074_NT | The School of Athens | Focus on this artwork and explore the Precursors. | Similar subjects are known from antiquity, notably the Plato's Academy mosaic. It perhaps also appeared in two groups of statues from Roman Egypt. The 19th century French consul Jean-François Mimaut mentioned nine statues at the Serapeum of Alexandria holding rolls, while eleven statues were found at the Memphis Saqqara. A review of "Les Statues Ptolémaïques du Sarapieion de Memphis" ascribed them to the 3rd century, sculpted of limestone and stucco, some standing and others sitting. Rowe and Rees 1956 suggested that both statue groups share a similar subject to the Plato's Academy mosaic, with the Saqqara figures identified as: "(1) Pindare, (2) Démétrios de Phalère, (3) x (?), (4) Orphée (?) aux oiseaux, (5) Hésiode, (6) Homère, (7) x (?), (8) Protagoras, (9) Thalès, (10) Héraclite, (11) Platon, (12) Aristote (?)." However, there have been other suggestions (e.g. Mattusch 2008). Plato and Thales are commonly identified as central figures. | [
"Pindare",
"Hésiode",
"Thales",
"Memphis Saqqara",
"Pindar",
"Plato's Academy mosaic",
"Serapeum of Alexandria",
"Rowe",
"Démétrios de Phalère",
"Platon",
"Saqqara",
"Plato",
"Héraclite",
"Homère",
"Thalès",
"Protagoras",
"Rees",
"Aristote",
"Orphée"
] |
|
17075_T | Lamentation over the Dead Christ (Botticelli, Milan) | Focus on Lamentation over the Dead Christ (Botticelli, Milan) and explain the abstract. | The Lamentation over the Dead Christ with Saints is a painting of the Lamentation of Christ by the Italian Renaissance artist Sandro Botticelli, dated between 1490 and 1495. The painting was originally kept in Santa Maria Maggiore, Florence. It is now in the Museo Poldi Pezzoli of Milan. The painting is one of two versions of The Lamentation by Botticelli. The other, circa 1492, is now in the Alte Pinakothek in Munich. | [
"Milan",
"Sandro Botticelli",
"Museo Poldi Pezzoli",
"Munich",
"Santa Maria Maggiore, Florence",
"Lamentation of Christ",
"Alte Pinakothek"
] |
|
17075_NT | Lamentation over the Dead Christ (Botticelli, Milan) | Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract. | The Lamentation over the Dead Christ with Saints is a painting of the Lamentation of Christ by the Italian Renaissance artist Sandro Botticelli, dated between 1490 and 1495. The painting was originally kept in Santa Maria Maggiore, Florence. It is now in the Museo Poldi Pezzoli of Milan. The painting is one of two versions of The Lamentation by Botticelli. The other, circa 1492, is now in the Alte Pinakothek in Munich. | [
"Milan",
"Sandro Botticelli",
"Museo Poldi Pezzoli",
"Munich",
"Santa Maria Maggiore, Florence",
"Lamentation of Christ",
"Alte Pinakothek"
] |
|
17076_T | Lamentation over the Dead Christ (Botticelli, Milan) | Explore the Description of this artwork, Lamentation over the Dead Christ (Botticelli, Milan). | The painting depicts the lamentation (expression of great sorrow or deep sadness) over Christ's death. The Virgin Mary sits vertically with the dead Christ on her lap, his body appearing extremely small. The positioning of the two bodies creates the Pieta, which means pity in Italian and is a representation of The Virgin Mary mourning dead Christ. The Three Maries are circling the inner group expressing despair. Mary Magdalen is positioned at the feet of Christ in turmoil. St.John sits above The Virgin Mary and cradles her head in an attempt to soothe her. Joseph of Arimathea stands above the group holding the crown of thorns and three nails. Botticelli paints the figures in contorted and distorted poses. He does not apply the rules of naturalism to the painting. Instead, he focuses on his own personal preference of geometry. This very style of geometry had an influence on third generation renaissance painters to come. | [
"Mary Magdalen",
"Three Maries",
"Virgin Mary",
"Joseph of Arimathea"
] |
|
17076_NT | Lamentation over the Dead Christ (Botticelli, Milan) | Explore the Description of this artwork. | The painting depicts the lamentation (expression of great sorrow or deep sadness) over Christ's death. The Virgin Mary sits vertically with the dead Christ on her lap, his body appearing extremely small. The positioning of the two bodies creates the Pieta, which means pity in Italian and is a representation of The Virgin Mary mourning dead Christ. The Three Maries are circling the inner group expressing despair. Mary Magdalen is positioned at the feet of Christ in turmoil. St.John sits above The Virgin Mary and cradles her head in an attempt to soothe her. Joseph of Arimathea stands above the group holding the crown of thorns and three nails. Botticelli paints the figures in contorted and distorted poses. He does not apply the rules of naturalism to the painting. Instead, he focuses on his own personal preference of geometry. This very style of geometry had an influence on third generation renaissance painters to come. | [
"Mary Magdalen",
"Three Maries",
"Virgin Mary",
"Joseph of Arimathea"
] |
|
17077_T | Lamentation over the Dead Christ (Botticelli, Milan) | Focus on Lamentation over the Dead Christ (Botticelli, Milan) and discuss the Artist background. | Sandro Botticelli was a second generation renaissance painter born Allesandro di Mariano Filipepi in 1445. His nickname was Botticelli meaning little barrel. The renaissance began in fourteenth century Italy. Dramatic changes in art, architecture, and sculpture took place during this time. Botticelli has been noted as one of the most powerful painters of the lyrical current. In his later works, Botticelli developed a more personal style, particularly in his religious themed art. He is believed to have been influenced by Girolamo Savonarola. His range of work included religious pieces, mythical themes, portraits, alter pieces and Madonna (art). Additional famous works by Botticelli include Birth of Venus (Botticelli), Primavera (painting) and The Mystical Nativity. | [
"Madonna (art)",
"Birth of Venus (Botticelli)",
"Sandro Botticelli",
"Girolamo Savonarola",
"The Mystical Nativity",
"Primavera (painting)"
] |
|
17077_NT | Lamentation over the Dead Christ (Botticelli, Milan) | Focus on this artwork and discuss the Artist background. | Sandro Botticelli was a second generation renaissance painter born Allesandro di Mariano Filipepi in 1445. His nickname was Botticelli meaning little barrel. The renaissance began in fourteenth century Italy. Dramatic changes in art, architecture, and sculpture took place during this time. Botticelli has been noted as one of the most powerful painters of the lyrical current. In his later works, Botticelli developed a more personal style, particularly in his religious themed art. He is believed to have been influenced by Girolamo Savonarola. His range of work included religious pieces, mythical themes, portraits, alter pieces and Madonna (art). Additional famous works by Botticelli include Birth of Venus (Botticelli), Primavera (painting) and The Mystical Nativity. | [
"Madonna (art)",
"Birth of Venus (Botticelli)",
"Sandro Botticelli",
"Girolamo Savonarola",
"The Mystical Nativity",
"Primavera (painting)"
] |
|
17078_T | The Kiss (Brâncuși sculpture) | How does The Kiss (Brâncuși sculpture) elucidate its abstract? | The Kiss (in Romanian: Sărutul /səruːtul/) is a sculpture by Romanian Modernist sculptor Constantin Brâncuși. It is an early example of his proto-cubist style of non-literal representation. This sculpture is considered the first modern sculpture of the twentieth century.
This plaster was exhibited at the 1913 Armory Show and published in the Chicago Tribune of 25 March 1913. This early plaster sculpture is one of six casts that Brancusi made of the 1907–08 The Kiss.
It is a symbolistic work of two lovers embracing, a theme represented in numerous pieces of art full of erotism, from Auguste Rodin and Edvard Munch, to Gustave Moreau. | [
"proto-cubist",
"sculpture",
"Constantin Brâncuși",
"Armory Show",
"Romanian",
"Romania",
"Chicago Tribune"
] |
|
17078_NT | The Kiss (Brâncuși sculpture) | How does this artwork elucidate its abstract? | The Kiss (in Romanian: Sărutul /səruːtul/) is a sculpture by Romanian Modernist sculptor Constantin Brâncuși. It is an early example of his proto-cubist style of non-literal representation. This sculpture is considered the first modern sculpture of the twentieth century.
This plaster was exhibited at the 1913 Armory Show and published in the Chicago Tribune of 25 March 1913. This early plaster sculpture is one of six casts that Brancusi made of the 1907–08 The Kiss.
It is a symbolistic work of two lovers embracing, a theme represented in numerous pieces of art full of erotism, from Auguste Rodin and Edvard Munch, to Gustave Moreau. | [
"proto-cubist",
"sculpture",
"Constantin Brâncuși",
"Armory Show",
"Romanian",
"Romania",
"Chicago Tribune"
] |
|
17079_T | The Kiss (Brâncuși sculpture) | Focus on The Kiss (Brâncuși sculpture) and analyze the Versions. | The original Marne stone carving is at Craiova Art Museum, in Romania.
Brâncuși created many versions of The Kiss, further simplifying geometric forms and sparse objects in each version, tending each time further toward abstraction. His abstract style emphasizes simple geometrical lines that balance forms inherent in his materials with the symbolic allusions of representational art. Here, the shape of the original block of material is maintained. Another version of The Kiss serves as an adornment of a tomb in Montparnasse cemetery in Paris, France but has since August 2017 been covered up in a box. Another version still can be seen at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.This version of The Kiss is one of the artist's most well known works, along with Sleeping Muse (1908), Prometheus (1911), Mademoiselle Pogany (1913), The Newborn (1915), Bird in Space (1919) and The Column of the Infinite (Coloana infinitului), known as The Endless Column (1938). | [
"The Endless Column",
"France",
"abstraction",
"Bird in Space",
"representational art",
"Sleeping Muse",
"Montparnasse cemetery",
"Romania",
"Craiova Art Museum",
"adornment of a tomb",
"The Column of the Infinite (Coloana infinitului)",
"geometrical lines",
"Paris",
"symbolic allusions",
"Philadelphia Museum of Art"
] |
|
17079_NT | The Kiss (Brâncuși sculpture) | Focus on this artwork and analyze the Versions. | The original Marne stone carving is at Craiova Art Museum, in Romania.
Brâncuși created many versions of The Kiss, further simplifying geometric forms and sparse objects in each version, tending each time further toward abstraction. His abstract style emphasizes simple geometrical lines that balance forms inherent in his materials with the symbolic allusions of representational art. Here, the shape of the original block of material is maintained. Another version of The Kiss serves as an adornment of a tomb in Montparnasse cemetery in Paris, France but has since August 2017 been covered up in a box. Another version still can be seen at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.This version of The Kiss is one of the artist's most well known works, along with Sleeping Muse (1908), Prometheus (1911), Mademoiselle Pogany (1913), The Newborn (1915), Bird in Space (1919) and The Column of the Infinite (Coloana infinitului), known as The Endless Column (1938). | [
"The Endless Column",
"France",
"abstraction",
"Bird in Space",
"representational art",
"Sleeping Muse",
"Montparnasse cemetery",
"Romania",
"Craiova Art Museum",
"adornment of a tomb",
"The Column of the Infinite (Coloana infinitului)",
"geometrical lines",
"Paris",
"symbolic allusions",
"Philadelphia Museum of Art"
] |
|
17080_T | Portrait of Emile Zola | In Portrait of Emile Zola, how is the abstract discussed? | Portrait of Émile Zola is a painting of Émile Zola by Édouard Manet. Manet submitted the portrait to the 1868 Salon.
At this time Zola was known for his art criticism, and perhaps particularly as the writer of the novel Thérèse Raquin. This told the story of an adulterous affair between Thérèse, the wife of a clerk in a railway company, and a would-be painter named Laurent, whose work, rather like that of Zola's friend Paul Cézanne, is denigrated by the critics. In the eleventh chapter the milieu of Manet's Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe is evoked, in the murder scene, where Camille, the husband, goes out for the day with his wife and her lover to Saint-Ouen.
On the wall is a reproduction of Manet's Olympia, a controversial painting at the 1865 Salon but which Zola considered Manet's best work. "Behind it is an engraving from Velazquez's Bacchus indicating the taste for Spanish art shared by the painter and the writer. A Japanese print of a wrestler by Utagawa Kuniaki II completes the décor." A Japanese screen on the left of the picture recalls the role that the Far East played in revolutionizing ideas on perspective and colour in European painting. | [
"Thérèse Raquin",
"Émile Zola",
"Olympia",
"Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe",
"Utagawa Kuniaki II",
"Velazquez",
"Saint-Ouen",
"Édouard Manet",
"Paul Cézanne",
"Zola"
] |
|
17080_NT | Portrait of Emile Zola | In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed? | Portrait of Émile Zola is a painting of Émile Zola by Édouard Manet. Manet submitted the portrait to the 1868 Salon.
At this time Zola was known for his art criticism, and perhaps particularly as the writer of the novel Thérèse Raquin. This told the story of an adulterous affair between Thérèse, the wife of a clerk in a railway company, and a would-be painter named Laurent, whose work, rather like that of Zola's friend Paul Cézanne, is denigrated by the critics. In the eleventh chapter the milieu of Manet's Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe is evoked, in the murder scene, where Camille, the husband, goes out for the day with his wife and her lover to Saint-Ouen.
On the wall is a reproduction of Manet's Olympia, a controversial painting at the 1865 Salon but which Zola considered Manet's best work. "Behind it is an engraving from Velazquez's Bacchus indicating the taste for Spanish art shared by the painter and the writer. A Japanese print of a wrestler by Utagawa Kuniaki II completes the décor." A Japanese screen on the left of the picture recalls the role that the Far East played in revolutionizing ideas on perspective and colour in European painting. | [
"Thérèse Raquin",
"Émile Zola",
"Olympia",
"Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe",
"Utagawa Kuniaki II",
"Velazquez",
"Saint-Ouen",
"Édouard Manet",
"Paul Cézanne",
"Zola"
] |
|
17081_T | King Cophetua and the Beggar Maid (painting) | Focus on King Cophetua and the Beggar Maid (painting) and explore the abstract. | King Cophetua and the Beggar Maid is an 1884 painting by the Pre-Raphaelite artist Edward Burne-Jones. The painting illustrates the story of 'The King and the Beggar-maid", which tells the legend of the prince Cophetua who fell in love at first sight with the beggar Penelophon. The tale was familiar to Burne-Jones through an Elizabethan ballad published in Bishop Thomas Percy's 1765 Reliques of Ancient English Poetry and the sixteen-line poem The Beggar Maid by Alfred, Lord Tennyson.Burne-Jones first attempted the story in an oil painting of 1861–62 (now in the Tate Gallery, London). He was working out a new composition around 1874 or 1875, and began the painting in earnest in 1881. He worked on it through the winter of 1883–84, declaring it finished in April 1884.
The composition is influenced by Andrea Mantegna's Madonna della Vittoria (1496–96). Several studies for the final work survive. A small gouache (bodycolour) of c. 1883 (now in the collection of Andrew Lloyd Webber) shows the king and the beggar maid much closer together, and a full-scale cartoon in bodycolour and coloured chalks of the same year (now in the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery) features an entirely different approach to lighting the figures.
King Cophetua was exhibited at the Grosvenor Gallery in 1884 and became Burne-Jones's greatest success of the 1880s for its technical execution and its themes of power and wealth overborne by beauty and simplicity. It was heralded as the "picture of the year" by The Art Journal and "not only the finest work Mr. Burne-Jones has ever painted, but one of the finest pictures ever painted by an Englishman" by The Times. The painting was exhibited in France in 1889, where its popularity earned Burne-Jones the Legion of Honour and began a vogue for his work. The artist's wife Georgiana Burne-Jones felt "this picture contained more of Edward's own qualities than any other he did."The painting was purchased by the Earl of Wharncliffe (d. 1899) and acquired by public subscription through the Burne-Jones Memorial Fund from his executors in 1900. It is now in Tate Britain. The full-scale cartoon was acquired for Birmingham in 1947.
The painting is referenced in Chapter 4 of Anthony Powell's "Books do Furnish a Room", the tenth installment of "A Dance to the Music of Time", as a visual set-up for the confrontation between X Trapnel and Kenneth Widmerpool in the former's digs in bombed out Little Venice circa 1947. Pamela Widmerpool is envisioned as the Beggar Maid.
The painting is also mentioned in the story "The Beggar Maid" by Alice Munro, where Patrick compares Rose to Beggar Maid, and Rose then looks at the picture only to find out how un-like King Cophetua Patrick would ever be, and how impossible their marriage would be (which turns to be the case). It also merits a mention in A.N. Wilson's novel "Kindly Light." | [
"love at first sight",
"The Art Journal",
"Alfred, Lord Tennyson",
"ballad",
"Tate Britain",
"Reliques of Ancient English Poetry",
"The King and the Beggar-maid",
"Earl of Wharncliffe",
"Grosvenor Gallery",
"The Times",
"cartoon",
"Thomas Percy",
"Andrea Mantegna",
"Legion of Honour",
"Andrew Lloyd Webber",
"Elizabethan",
"London",
"gouache",
"Georgiana Burne-Jones",
"Edward Burne-Jones",
"Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery",
"Pre-Raphaelite"
] |
|
17081_NT | King Cophetua and the Beggar Maid (painting) | Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract. | King Cophetua and the Beggar Maid is an 1884 painting by the Pre-Raphaelite artist Edward Burne-Jones. The painting illustrates the story of 'The King and the Beggar-maid", which tells the legend of the prince Cophetua who fell in love at first sight with the beggar Penelophon. The tale was familiar to Burne-Jones through an Elizabethan ballad published in Bishop Thomas Percy's 1765 Reliques of Ancient English Poetry and the sixteen-line poem The Beggar Maid by Alfred, Lord Tennyson.Burne-Jones first attempted the story in an oil painting of 1861–62 (now in the Tate Gallery, London). He was working out a new composition around 1874 or 1875, and began the painting in earnest in 1881. He worked on it through the winter of 1883–84, declaring it finished in April 1884.
The composition is influenced by Andrea Mantegna's Madonna della Vittoria (1496–96). Several studies for the final work survive. A small gouache (bodycolour) of c. 1883 (now in the collection of Andrew Lloyd Webber) shows the king and the beggar maid much closer together, and a full-scale cartoon in bodycolour and coloured chalks of the same year (now in the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery) features an entirely different approach to lighting the figures.
King Cophetua was exhibited at the Grosvenor Gallery in 1884 and became Burne-Jones's greatest success of the 1880s for its technical execution and its themes of power and wealth overborne by beauty and simplicity. It was heralded as the "picture of the year" by The Art Journal and "not only the finest work Mr. Burne-Jones has ever painted, but one of the finest pictures ever painted by an Englishman" by The Times. The painting was exhibited in France in 1889, where its popularity earned Burne-Jones the Legion of Honour and began a vogue for his work. The artist's wife Georgiana Burne-Jones felt "this picture contained more of Edward's own qualities than any other he did."The painting was purchased by the Earl of Wharncliffe (d. 1899) and acquired by public subscription through the Burne-Jones Memorial Fund from his executors in 1900. It is now in Tate Britain. The full-scale cartoon was acquired for Birmingham in 1947.
The painting is referenced in Chapter 4 of Anthony Powell's "Books do Furnish a Room", the tenth installment of "A Dance to the Music of Time", as a visual set-up for the confrontation between X Trapnel and Kenneth Widmerpool in the former's digs in bombed out Little Venice circa 1947. Pamela Widmerpool is envisioned as the Beggar Maid.
The painting is also mentioned in the story "The Beggar Maid" by Alice Munro, where Patrick compares Rose to Beggar Maid, and Rose then looks at the picture only to find out how un-like King Cophetua Patrick would ever be, and how impossible their marriage would be (which turns to be the case). It also merits a mention in A.N. Wilson's novel "Kindly Light." | [
"love at first sight",
"The Art Journal",
"Alfred, Lord Tennyson",
"ballad",
"Tate Britain",
"Reliques of Ancient English Poetry",
"The King and the Beggar-maid",
"Earl of Wharncliffe",
"Grosvenor Gallery",
"The Times",
"cartoon",
"Thomas Percy",
"Andrea Mantegna",
"Legion of Honour",
"Andrew Lloyd Webber",
"Elizabethan",
"London",
"gouache",
"Georgiana Burne-Jones",
"Edward Burne-Jones",
"Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery",
"Pre-Raphaelite"
] |
|
17082_T | Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers | Explore the abstract of this artwork, Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers. | Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers is an oil painting by the French artist Paul Delaroche, depicting Charles I of England taunted by the victorious soldiers of Oliver Cromwell after the Second English Civil War, prior to his execution in 1649. Completed in 1836, it is thought to be one of Delaroche's greatest masterpieces. It was displayed as part of the Bridgewater Collection in London, although it was latterly thought to have been lost when, during The Blitz of 1941, a German bomb struck close to Bridgewater House, causing shrapnel damage to the canvas in the ensuing explosion. In 2009 it was rediscovered in Scotland in an unexpectedly good condition, having been rolled up and stored after the war, but recorded in the intervening years as badly damaged or destroyed. After a partial restoration it went on display in the National Gallery in London in 2010, in an exhibition re-appraising Delaroche's work. After the exhibition, it was to be fully restored. | [
"Oliver Cromwell",
"his execution",
"Second English Civil War",
"The Blitz",
"Paul Delaroche",
"Bridgewater Collection",
"oil painting",
"Bridgewater House",
"Delaroche",
"National Gallery",
"London",
"Charles I of England",
"shrapnel"
] |
|
17082_NT | Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers | Explore the abstract of this artwork. | Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers is an oil painting by the French artist Paul Delaroche, depicting Charles I of England taunted by the victorious soldiers of Oliver Cromwell after the Second English Civil War, prior to his execution in 1649. Completed in 1836, it is thought to be one of Delaroche's greatest masterpieces. It was displayed as part of the Bridgewater Collection in London, although it was latterly thought to have been lost when, during The Blitz of 1941, a German bomb struck close to Bridgewater House, causing shrapnel damage to the canvas in the ensuing explosion. In 2009 it was rediscovered in Scotland in an unexpectedly good condition, having been rolled up and stored after the war, but recorded in the intervening years as badly damaged or destroyed. After a partial restoration it went on display in the National Gallery in London in 2010, in an exhibition re-appraising Delaroche's work. After the exhibition, it was to be fully restored. | [
"Oliver Cromwell",
"his execution",
"Second English Civil War",
"The Blitz",
"Paul Delaroche",
"Bridgewater Collection",
"oil painting",
"Bridgewater House",
"Delaroche",
"National Gallery",
"London",
"Charles I of England",
"shrapnel"
] |
|
17083_T | Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers | Focus on Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers and discuss the Ownership. | Delaroche's Charles I Insulted was commissioned by Francis Egerton, 1st Earl of Ellesmere, who was known as Lord Francis Leveson-Gower until 1833 when, following the death of his father, he was created the first Earl of Ellesmere, inheriting Bridgewater House in London from his bachelor great uncle, Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater. The family line of the Earls of Ellesmere became the Dukes of Sutherland when, in 1963, John Egerton, 5th Earl of Ellesmere, succeeded to the title of Duke of Sutherland on the death of the 5th Duke of Sutherland with no male heir in the elder line. As of its rediscovery in 2009, the painting remained privately owned by the present Duke, Francis Egerton, 7th Duke of Sutherland. The 7th Duke was the 6th Duke's cousin and heir to the Dukedom, since the 6th Duke had no children himself. | [
"John Egerton, 5th Earl of Ellesmere",
"Francis Egerton, 7th Duke of Sutherland",
"Earl of Ellesmere",
"Francis Egerton, 1st Earl of Ellesmere",
"Bridgewater House",
"Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater",
"Delaroche",
"London"
] |
|
17083_NT | Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers | Focus on this artwork and discuss the Ownership. | Delaroche's Charles I Insulted was commissioned by Francis Egerton, 1st Earl of Ellesmere, who was known as Lord Francis Leveson-Gower until 1833 when, following the death of his father, he was created the first Earl of Ellesmere, inheriting Bridgewater House in London from his bachelor great uncle, Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater. The family line of the Earls of Ellesmere became the Dukes of Sutherland when, in 1963, John Egerton, 5th Earl of Ellesmere, succeeded to the title of Duke of Sutherland on the death of the 5th Duke of Sutherland with no male heir in the elder line. As of its rediscovery in 2009, the painting remained privately owned by the present Duke, Francis Egerton, 7th Duke of Sutherland. The 7th Duke was the 6th Duke's cousin and heir to the Dukedom, since the 6th Duke had no children himself. | [
"John Egerton, 5th Earl of Ellesmere",
"Francis Egerton, 7th Duke of Sutherland",
"Earl of Ellesmere",
"Francis Egerton, 1st Earl of Ellesmere",
"Bridgewater House",
"Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater",
"Delaroche",
"London"
] |
|
17084_T | Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers | In the context of Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers, analyze the 1836 to 2009 of the History. | Charles I Insulted is a large piece, painted on a canvas measuring 13 feet (4.0 m) by 10 feet (3.0 m)., also described as being nearly three metres square. It was completed in 1836. It was first displayed at the Paris Salon of 1837, and in 1838 at the British Institution in London. The painting was then hung for decades as part of the semi-public Bridgewater Collection in Bridgewater House in London.The painting suffered serious damage during a Second World War German bombing raid on London. On 11 May 1941, during the last night and most deadly raid of what became known as The Blitz, one bomb landed on the street outside Bridgewater House, leaving a 3-metre (9.8 ft) deep bomb crater. Hanging in the dining room at the time, the painting suffered extensive shrapnel damage. At least four paintings in the collection were totally destroyed in the raid, while others less damaged were eventually restored. Charles I Insulted was demounted and rolled up, having been given a rudimentary repair using paper to hold together the largest tears. After the war, it was transported to Mertoun House in St Boswells, Roxburghshire, the family's Scottish home, for storage.While stored safe and dry in Mertoun, over the next 68 years the existence of the painting was gradually forgotten about by its owners, and presumed by the art world to be lost as irreparably damaged in the raid. | [
"Paris Salon",
"British Institution",
"The Blitz",
"Bridgewater Collection",
"Mertoun House",
"Roxburghshire",
"bomb crater",
"Bridgewater House",
"London",
"shrapnel",
"St Boswells"
] |
|
17084_NT | Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers | In the context of this artwork, analyze the 1836 to 2009 of the History. | Charles I Insulted is a large piece, painted on a canvas measuring 13 feet (4.0 m) by 10 feet (3.0 m)., also described as being nearly three metres square. It was completed in 1836. It was first displayed at the Paris Salon of 1837, and in 1838 at the British Institution in London. The painting was then hung for decades as part of the semi-public Bridgewater Collection in Bridgewater House in London.The painting suffered serious damage during a Second World War German bombing raid on London. On 11 May 1941, during the last night and most deadly raid of what became known as The Blitz, one bomb landed on the street outside Bridgewater House, leaving a 3-metre (9.8 ft) deep bomb crater. Hanging in the dining room at the time, the painting suffered extensive shrapnel damage. At least four paintings in the collection were totally destroyed in the raid, while others less damaged were eventually restored. Charles I Insulted was demounted and rolled up, having been given a rudimentary repair using paper to hold together the largest tears. After the war, it was transported to Mertoun House in St Boswells, Roxburghshire, the family's Scottish home, for storage.While stored safe and dry in Mertoun, over the next 68 years the existence of the painting was gradually forgotten about by its owners, and presumed by the art world to be lost as irreparably damaged in the raid. | [
"Paris Salon",
"British Institution",
"The Blitz",
"Bridgewater Collection",
"Mertoun House",
"Roxburghshire",
"bomb crater",
"Bridgewater House",
"London",
"shrapnel",
"St Boswells"
] |
|
17085_T | Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers | Describe the characteristics of the 2009 onwards in Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers's History. | The painting was rediscovered in the summer of 2009 by National Gallery curators, after they made enquiries about the painting as they prepared a Delaroche exhibition. The 2010 exhibition was to be the first major show on Delaroche to be held in Britain, aiming to reassess the works of Delaroche, who fell out of fashion during the early 20th century, and featuring his most famous work from the National Gallery collection, The Execution of Lady Jane Grey (1833), which was also a rediscovered work: it had been thought lost when the Tate Gallery was flooded in 1928, and was found rolled up in 1973.On 7 June 2009 at Mertoun, it was unrolled for the first time since being moved to Scotland. To the surprise of those present, the painting was largely intact, having "lost none of its intensity". The explosion damage consisted of around 200 individual tears in the canvas, which still contained plaster fragments and dust from the blast.After moving the painting to London, it was restored sufficiently to be able to be displayed in the exhibition, albeit with the shrapnel scars still visible, and "somewhat yellowed by a layer of discoloured varnish". Because the canvas had been rolled up for nearly 70 years, it had to be weighed down flat for six weeks. The tears were then stitched together, and the canvas lined.The painting's first ever public display since rediscovery was as part of the exhibition Painting History: Delaroche and Lady Jane Grey, running from 24 February to 24 May 2010. It went on display on 23 February in a separate room in the museum's free admission area, with the main part of the exhibition held in the adjacent Sainsbury Wing of the gallery. The painting was to be fully restored after the London exhibition whereupon work would start to remove the discoloured varnish and retouch the damaged areas. | [
"Sainsbury Wing",
"flooded in 1928",
"Delaroche",
"National Gallery",
"The Execution of Lady Jane Grey",
"London",
"shrapnel"
] |
|
17085_NT | Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers | Describe the characteristics of the 2009 onwards in this artwork's History. | The painting was rediscovered in the summer of 2009 by National Gallery curators, after they made enquiries about the painting as they prepared a Delaroche exhibition. The 2010 exhibition was to be the first major show on Delaroche to be held in Britain, aiming to reassess the works of Delaroche, who fell out of fashion during the early 20th century, and featuring his most famous work from the National Gallery collection, The Execution of Lady Jane Grey (1833), which was also a rediscovered work: it had been thought lost when the Tate Gallery was flooded in 1928, and was found rolled up in 1973.On 7 June 2009 at Mertoun, it was unrolled for the first time since being moved to Scotland. To the surprise of those present, the painting was largely intact, having "lost none of its intensity". The explosion damage consisted of around 200 individual tears in the canvas, which still contained plaster fragments and dust from the blast.After moving the painting to London, it was restored sufficiently to be able to be displayed in the exhibition, albeit with the shrapnel scars still visible, and "somewhat yellowed by a layer of discoloured varnish". Because the canvas had been rolled up for nearly 70 years, it had to be weighed down flat for six weeks. The tears were then stitched together, and the canvas lined.The painting's first ever public display since rediscovery was as part of the exhibition Painting History: Delaroche and Lady Jane Grey, running from 24 February to 24 May 2010. It went on display on 23 February in a separate room in the museum's free admission area, with the main part of the exhibition held in the adjacent Sainsbury Wing of the gallery. The painting was to be fully restored after the London exhibition whereupon work would start to remove the discoloured varnish and retouch the damaged areas. | [
"Sainsbury Wing",
"flooded in 1928",
"Delaroche",
"National Gallery",
"The Execution of Lady Jane Grey",
"London",
"shrapnel"
] |
|
17086_T | Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers | Focus on Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers and explore the Reception. | According to the London National Gallery, it is "one of the great paintings on themes of English history for which Delaroche had become renowned", in which Delaroche was "able to imply striking parallels between the poignant fate of Charles and the recent course of French history". According to the gallery director Nicholas Penny, the rediscovery was "huge" and its redisplay would be an historic moment, describing it as "an extraordinarily powerful work", "one of the great French paintings" and by "one of the greatest painters" of the 19th century. According to Penny, Delaroche, a Frenchman, was a notable painter of Tudor and Stuart history, as a method of "exploring the violence and vicissitudes of the French Revolution" without actually portraying the events themselves, which were regarded as too recent to paint.According to the National Gallery's exhibition curator Christopher Riopelle, both Charles I Insulted and Delaroche's other painting, Marie-Antoinette Before the Tribunal, painted fifteen years later in 1851, "suggest episodes of the suffering of Christ". Riopelle added that Delaroche's "obsession with English royalist history" was "classic displacement of what you want to talk about but can't, because it's still so raw and recent", particularly referring to the execution of Louis XVI of France in January 1793, and nine months later of his Queen Marie Antoinette.Charlotte Higgins of The Guardian described it as "one of Delaroche's masterpieces", which "owes a debt" to Anthony van Dyck's famous painting of Charles I. Higgins also said that it "clearly references the popular artistic subject of the mocking of Christ by his guards". According to Arifa Akbar of The Independent, "Delaroche's monumental painting featuring Charles I as a Christ-like figure" is regarded as "one of Delaroche's most powerful pieces", commissioned at the "height of his fame".David Horspool of The Times, reflecting on the fate of Delaroche's Execution of Lady Jane Grey which was relegated to a basement (in which it was later flood damaged), due to Delaroche's falling fame, said "there seems no chance that [Charles I Insulted] will be rolled up and put away. Delaroche's days as the forgotten master seem to be over", predicting the rediscovered piece would be perhaps "the most exciting exhibit to go on display" in the 2010 National Gallery exhibition. | [
"Stuart",
"Tudor",
"Marie-Antoinette",
"mocking of Christ",
"David Horspool",
"Marie Antoinette",
"Anthony van Dyck",
"Louis XVI of France",
"suffering of Christ",
"The Guardian",
"The Times",
"The Independent",
"Delaroche",
"French Revolution",
"National Gallery",
"Charlotte Higgins",
"London",
"Louis XVI",
"the execution",
"Nicholas Penny"
] |
|
17086_NT | Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers | Focus on this artwork and explore the Reception. | According to the London National Gallery, it is "one of the great paintings on themes of English history for which Delaroche had become renowned", in which Delaroche was "able to imply striking parallels between the poignant fate of Charles and the recent course of French history". According to the gallery director Nicholas Penny, the rediscovery was "huge" and its redisplay would be an historic moment, describing it as "an extraordinarily powerful work", "one of the great French paintings" and by "one of the greatest painters" of the 19th century. According to Penny, Delaroche, a Frenchman, was a notable painter of Tudor and Stuart history, as a method of "exploring the violence and vicissitudes of the French Revolution" without actually portraying the events themselves, which were regarded as too recent to paint.According to the National Gallery's exhibition curator Christopher Riopelle, both Charles I Insulted and Delaroche's other painting, Marie-Antoinette Before the Tribunal, painted fifteen years later in 1851, "suggest episodes of the suffering of Christ". Riopelle added that Delaroche's "obsession with English royalist history" was "classic displacement of what you want to talk about but can't, because it's still so raw and recent", particularly referring to the execution of Louis XVI of France in January 1793, and nine months later of his Queen Marie Antoinette.Charlotte Higgins of The Guardian described it as "one of Delaroche's masterpieces", which "owes a debt" to Anthony van Dyck's famous painting of Charles I. Higgins also said that it "clearly references the popular artistic subject of the mocking of Christ by his guards". According to Arifa Akbar of The Independent, "Delaroche's monumental painting featuring Charles I as a Christ-like figure" is regarded as "one of Delaroche's most powerful pieces", commissioned at the "height of his fame".David Horspool of The Times, reflecting on the fate of Delaroche's Execution of Lady Jane Grey which was relegated to a basement (in which it was later flood damaged), due to Delaroche's falling fame, said "there seems no chance that [Charles I Insulted] will be rolled up and put away. Delaroche's days as the forgotten master seem to be over", predicting the rediscovered piece would be perhaps "the most exciting exhibit to go on display" in the 2010 National Gallery exhibition. | [
"Stuart",
"Tudor",
"Marie-Antoinette",
"mocking of Christ",
"David Horspool",
"Marie Antoinette",
"Anthony van Dyck",
"Louis XVI of France",
"suffering of Christ",
"The Guardian",
"The Times",
"The Independent",
"Delaroche",
"French Revolution",
"National Gallery",
"Charlotte Higgins",
"London",
"Louis XVI",
"the execution",
"Nicholas Penny"
] |
|
17087_T | Chandos portrait | Focus on Chandos portrait and explain the Authorship and provenance. | It has been claimed that Shakespeare's friend Richard Burbage (1567–1619) painted the Chandos portrait, but the first known reference to the painting is in a note written in 1719 by George Vertue, who states that it was painted by John Taylor, a respected member of the Painter-Stainers' company who may also have been the same John Taylor who acted with the Children of Paul's. Vertue refers to Taylor as an actor and painter and as Shakespeare's "intimate friend". Katherine Duncan-Jones argues that 'John Taylor' could have been a misreading of what had originally been "Jo: Taylor"; she suggests that this may refer to the actor Joseph Taylor, who was a protégé of the older Shakespeare.Vertue also states that before the Duke of Chandos acquired it, the portrait was owned by Shakespeare's possible godson, William Davenant (1606–1668), who, according to the gossip chronicler John Aubrey, claimed to be the playwright's illegitimate son. He also states that it was left to Davenant in Taylor's will and that it was bought by Thomas Betterton from Davenant and then sold to the lawyer Robert Keck, a collector of Shakespeare memorabilia.After Keck's death in 1719, it passed to his daughter, and was inherited by John Nichol, who married into the Keck family. Nichol's daughter Margaret married James Brydges, 3rd Duke of Chandos. The painting passed through descent within the Chandos title until Richard Temple-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos sold it to the Earl of Ellesmere in 1848. Ellesmere donated it to the National Portrait Gallery. | [
"Thomas Betterton",
"National Portrait Gallery",
"Earl of Ellesmere",
"Joseph Taylor",
"Children of Paul's",
"left",
"John Taylor",
"Richard Burbage",
"James Brydges, 3rd Duke of Chandos",
"John Aubrey",
"William Davenant",
"Painter-Stainers' company",
"Richard Temple-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos",
"George Vertue",
"Katherine Duncan-Jones",
"3rd Duke of Chandos"
] |
|
17087_NT | Chandos portrait | Focus on this artwork and explain the Authorship and provenance. | It has been claimed that Shakespeare's friend Richard Burbage (1567–1619) painted the Chandos portrait, but the first known reference to the painting is in a note written in 1719 by George Vertue, who states that it was painted by John Taylor, a respected member of the Painter-Stainers' company who may also have been the same John Taylor who acted with the Children of Paul's. Vertue refers to Taylor as an actor and painter and as Shakespeare's "intimate friend". Katherine Duncan-Jones argues that 'John Taylor' could have been a misreading of what had originally been "Jo: Taylor"; she suggests that this may refer to the actor Joseph Taylor, who was a protégé of the older Shakespeare.Vertue also states that before the Duke of Chandos acquired it, the portrait was owned by Shakespeare's possible godson, William Davenant (1606–1668), who, according to the gossip chronicler John Aubrey, claimed to be the playwright's illegitimate son. He also states that it was left to Davenant in Taylor's will and that it was bought by Thomas Betterton from Davenant and then sold to the lawyer Robert Keck, a collector of Shakespeare memorabilia.After Keck's death in 1719, it passed to his daughter, and was inherited by John Nichol, who married into the Keck family. Nichol's daughter Margaret married James Brydges, 3rd Duke of Chandos. The painting passed through descent within the Chandos title until Richard Temple-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos sold it to the Earl of Ellesmere in 1848. Ellesmere donated it to the National Portrait Gallery. | [
"Thomas Betterton",
"National Portrait Gallery",
"Earl of Ellesmere",
"Joseph Taylor",
"Children of Paul's",
"left",
"John Taylor",
"Richard Burbage",
"James Brydges, 3rd Duke of Chandos",
"John Aubrey",
"William Davenant",
"Painter-Stainers' company",
"Richard Temple-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos",
"George Vertue",
"Katherine Duncan-Jones",
"3rd Duke of Chandos"
] |
|
17088_T | Chandos portrait | Explore the Scholarly views of this artwork, Chandos portrait. | A contemporary image of the playwright is the engraving in the posthumously published First Folio of 1623, which was created by Martin Droeshout and was probably commissioned by Shakespeare's friends and family. It is considered likely that the Droeshout engraving is a reasonably accurate likeness of Shakespeare because of its acceptance by these close associates and that contemporaries such as Ben Jonson praised it at the time of the publication. Since the man in the Chandos portrait resembles the one in the Droeshout engraving, the similarity lends an indirect legitimacy to the oil painting. A further indication of legitimacy is the fact that the Chandos portrait was the inspiration for two posthumous portraits of Shakespeare, one by Gerard Soest and another, grander one, known as the "Chesterfield portrait" after a former owner of that painting. These were probably painted in the 1660s or 1670s, within living memory of Shakespeare. The Chesterfield portrait is held by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford-upon-Avon.
In 2006, art historian Tarnya Cooper of the National Portrait Gallery completed a three-and-a-half-year study of portraits purported to be of Shakespeare and concluded that the Chandos portrait was most likely a representation of Shakespeare. Cooper points to the earring and the loose shirt-ties of the sitter, which were emblematic of poets (the poet John Donne and Shakespeare's patron the Earl of Pembroke sported similar fashions). However, she readily acknowledges that the painting's authenticity cannot be proven.Cooper also notes that the painting has been badly damaged by over-cleaning and retouching. Parts are abraded and some parts have been slightly altered. The hair has been extended and the beard is longer and more pointed than when originally painted. | [
"Ben Jonson",
"National Portrait Gallery",
"Tarnya Cooper",
"Stratford-upon-Avon",
"engraving",
"Gerard Soest",
"Shakespeare Birthplace Trust",
"First Folio",
"Martin Droeshout",
"Earl of Pembroke",
"John Donne"
] |
|
17088_NT | Chandos portrait | Explore the Scholarly views of this artwork. | A contemporary image of the playwright is the engraving in the posthumously published First Folio of 1623, which was created by Martin Droeshout and was probably commissioned by Shakespeare's friends and family. It is considered likely that the Droeshout engraving is a reasonably accurate likeness of Shakespeare because of its acceptance by these close associates and that contemporaries such as Ben Jonson praised it at the time of the publication. Since the man in the Chandos portrait resembles the one in the Droeshout engraving, the similarity lends an indirect legitimacy to the oil painting. A further indication of legitimacy is the fact that the Chandos portrait was the inspiration for two posthumous portraits of Shakespeare, one by Gerard Soest and another, grander one, known as the "Chesterfield portrait" after a former owner of that painting. These were probably painted in the 1660s or 1670s, within living memory of Shakespeare. The Chesterfield portrait is held by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford-upon-Avon.
In 2006, art historian Tarnya Cooper of the National Portrait Gallery completed a three-and-a-half-year study of portraits purported to be of Shakespeare and concluded that the Chandos portrait was most likely a representation of Shakespeare. Cooper points to the earring and the loose shirt-ties of the sitter, which were emblematic of poets (the poet John Donne and Shakespeare's patron the Earl of Pembroke sported similar fashions). However, she readily acknowledges that the painting's authenticity cannot be proven.Cooper also notes that the painting has been badly damaged by over-cleaning and retouching. Parts are abraded and some parts have been slightly altered. The hair has been extended and the beard is longer and more pointed than when originally painted. | [
"Ben Jonson",
"National Portrait Gallery",
"Tarnya Cooper",
"Stratford-upon-Avon",
"engraving",
"Gerard Soest",
"Shakespeare Birthplace Trust",
"First Folio",
"Martin Droeshout",
"Earl of Pembroke",
"John Donne"
] |
|
17089_T | Chandos portrait | Focus on Chandos portrait and discuss the Copies. | In addition to the Chesterfield portrait, a copy was made at least as early as 1689 by an unknown artist. Many 18th century images used it as a model for portrayals of Shakespeare.
The painting was engraved by Gerard Vandergucht for Nicholas Rowe's 1709 edition of Shakespeare's works. Another print was made by Jacobus Houbraken in 1747. | [
"Nicholas Rowe",
"Gerard Vandergucht",
"Jacobus Houbraken"
] |
|
17089_NT | Chandos portrait | Focus on this artwork and discuss the Copies. | In addition to the Chesterfield portrait, a copy was made at least as early as 1689 by an unknown artist. Many 18th century images used it as a model for portrayals of Shakespeare.
The painting was engraved by Gerard Vandergucht for Nicholas Rowe's 1709 edition of Shakespeare's works. Another print was made by Jacobus Houbraken in 1747. | [
"Nicholas Rowe",
"Gerard Vandergucht",
"Jacobus Houbraken"
] |
|
17090_T | Chandos portrait | How does Chandos portrait elucidate its Ethnic interpretations? | Because there are a lack of sources regarding Shakespeare's appearance – no written contemporary descriptions of him are known to exist, and conflicting views regarding Shakespeare's ethnicity were written about in the 19th and 20th centuries based on the painting (which themselves were based on phrenology). George Steevens said that the picture gave Shakespeare "the complexion of a Jew, or rather that of a chimney sweeper in the jaundice". According to Ben Macintyre, "Some Victorians recoiled at the idea that the Chandos portrait represented Shakespeare. One critic, J. Hain Friswell, insisted 'one cannot readily imagine our essentially English Shakespeare to have been a dark, heavy man, with a foreign expression'." Friswell agreed with Steevens that the portrait had "a decidedly Jewish physiognomy" adding that it displayed "a somewhat lubricious mouth, red-edged eyes" and "wanton lips, with a coarse expression." According to Ernest Jones, the portrait convinced Sigmund Freud that Shakespeare was French: "He insisted that his countenance could not be that of an Anglo-Saxon but must be French, and he suggested that the name was a corruption of Jacques Pierre." | [
"phrenology",
"Ernest Jones",
"Ben Macintyre",
"George Steevens",
"Sigmund Freud"
] |
|
17090_NT | Chandos portrait | How does this artwork elucidate its Ethnic interpretations? | Because there are a lack of sources regarding Shakespeare's appearance – no written contemporary descriptions of him are known to exist, and conflicting views regarding Shakespeare's ethnicity were written about in the 19th and 20th centuries based on the painting (which themselves were based on phrenology). George Steevens said that the picture gave Shakespeare "the complexion of a Jew, or rather that of a chimney sweeper in the jaundice". According to Ben Macintyre, "Some Victorians recoiled at the idea that the Chandos portrait represented Shakespeare. One critic, J. Hain Friswell, insisted 'one cannot readily imagine our essentially English Shakespeare to have been a dark, heavy man, with a foreign expression'." Friswell agreed with Steevens that the portrait had "a decidedly Jewish physiognomy" adding that it displayed "a somewhat lubricious mouth, red-edged eyes" and "wanton lips, with a coarse expression." According to Ernest Jones, the portrait convinced Sigmund Freud that Shakespeare was French: "He insisted that his countenance could not be that of an Anglo-Saxon but must be French, and he suggested that the name was a corruption of Jacques Pierre." | [
"phrenology",
"Ernest Jones",
"Ben Macintyre",
"George Steevens",
"Sigmund Freud"
] |
|
17091_T | The Old Plantation | Focus on The Old Plantation and analyze the abstract. | The Old Plantation is an American folk art watercolor probably painted in the late 18th century on a South Carolina plantation. It is notable for its early date, its credible, non-stereotypical depiction of slaves on the North American mainland, and the fact that the slaves are shown pursuing their own interests. In 2010, Colonial Williamsburg librarian Susan P. Shames identified the artist as South Carolina slaveholder John Rose, and the painting may depict his plantation in what is now Beaufort County. | [
"South Carolina",
"Beaufort County",
"slaveholder",
"Colonial Williamsburg",
"folk art",
"artist",
"plantation",
"watercolor",
"Beaufort"
] |
|
17091_NT | The Old Plantation | Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract. | The Old Plantation is an American folk art watercolor probably painted in the late 18th century on a South Carolina plantation. It is notable for its early date, its credible, non-stereotypical depiction of slaves on the North American mainland, and the fact that the slaves are shown pursuing their own interests. In 2010, Colonial Williamsburg librarian Susan P. Shames identified the artist as South Carolina slaveholder John Rose, and the painting may depict his plantation in what is now Beaufort County. | [
"South Carolina",
"Beaufort County",
"slaveholder",
"Colonial Williamsburg",
"folk art",
"artist",
"plantation",
"watercolor",
"Beaufort"
] |
|
17092_T | The Old Plantation | In The Old Plantation, how is the Description and interpretation discussed? | The painting depicts African American slaves between two small outbuildings of a plantation sited on a broad river. It is the only known painting of its era that depicts African Americans by themselves, concerned only with each other, though its central activity remains obscure. Some writers have speculated that the painting depicts a marriage ceremony, with the attendant tradition of "jumping the broom". However, scholars have suggested that the subjects are performing a secular dance: western African dance patterns traditionally include sticks and a variety of body positions. The headdresses pictured are of West African origin.The painting shows two male musicians, one of whom is playing an early gourd banjo. This is the earliest known painting to picture a banjo. The second musician is playing a percussion instrument that resembles a Yoruba gudugudu. The two women hold what look like scarves, but are actually sheguras, rattles made of a gourd enclosed in a net of variable length into which hard objects have been woven. | [
"West Africa",
"jumping the broom",
"gudugudu",
"plantation",
"African American slaves"
] |
|
17092_NT | The Old Plantation | In this artwork, how is the Description and interpretation discussed? | The painting depicts African American slaves between two small outbuildings of a plantation sited on a broad river. It is the only known painting of its era that depicts African Americans by themselves, concerned only with each other, though its central activity remains obscure. Some writers have speculated that the painting depicts a marriage ceremony, with the attendant tradition of "jumping the broom". However, scholars have suggested that the subjects are performing a secular dance: western African dance patterns traditionally include sticks and a variety of body positions. The headdresses pictured are of West African origin.The painting shows two male musicians, one of whom is playing an early gourd banjo. This is the earliest known painting to picture a banjo. The second musician is playing a percussion instrument that resembles a Yoruba gudugudu. The two women hold what look like scarves, but are actually sheguras, rattles made of a gourd enclosed in a net of variable length into which hard objects have been woven. | [
"West Africa",
"jumping the broom",
"gudugudu",
"plantation",
"African American slaves"
] |
|
17093_T | The Old Plantation | Focus on The Old Plantation and explore the Artist and provenance. | For decades the identity of the artist was unknown, as was the painting's provenance before 1935, when it was purchased by Holger Cahill from Mary E. Lyles of Columbia, South Carolina. However, in 2010, Susan P. Shames, a librarian at Colonial Williamsburg, published a book titled The Old Plantation: The Artist Revealed in which she argues that the artist was the South Carolina plantation owner John Rose. Shames further suggests that the image depicts slaves on Rose's plantation in what is now Beaufort County, South Carolina, or one nearby.In 1775, Rose was named Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas in Beaufort District, an appointment implying his educated status and familiarity with governing officials. By 1795, he owned a lot in the town of Beaufort, as well as a rural, 813-acre tract on the Coosaw River in Prince William Parish. He employed slave labor to farm the latter property. At least 50 of these slaves have been identified by name, and he probably owned others. Shames suggests that the slaves and plantation depicted in the image were Rose's own. However, the broad river in the middle ground raises questions about whether Rose owned property on both sides of this natural boundary and, thus, whether he depicted his own dwelling and outbuildings in the background, or a neighbor's. Rose moved to the Dorchester area in present-day Colleton County in 1795, and he died in 1820 in Charleston after a fall from a horse.In his will, Rose left his watercolor of dancing slaves to his son-in-law, Thomas Davis Stall (1770–1848). According to Shames, it remained in the family for more than a hundred years, until it was finally sold at an auction of the estate of Rose Rowan Ellis Copes (1846–1927) of Orangeburg, South Carolina, probably in 1928 or 1929. It was bought either by an unidentified interim dealer or by Mary Earle Lyles (b. 1878) of Columbia. It was certainly in Lyles' possession by 1935, when it was purchased by Holger Cahill, acting as agent for Abby Aldrich Rockefeller. According to Lyles, however, it was painted on a plantation between Charleston and Orangeburg. A watermark on the paper has been identified as that used by the English papermaker James Whatman II (1741–1798) between 1777 and 1794.Rockefeller and Cahill transferred the painting to Williamsburg, Virginia, to be part of the Rockefeller collection at the Ludwell-Paradise House. It was later given to Colonial Williamsburg. The painting is currently held by the Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Museum in Williamsburg. | [
"Dorchester",
"South Carolina",
"Beaufort County",
"Artist",
"Abby Aldrich Rockefeller",
"Holger Cahill",
"Colleton County",
"Columbia, South Carolina",
"James Whatman",
"provenance",
"Colonial Williamsburg",
"Charleston",
"Beaufort County, South Carolina",
"watermark",
"artist",
"plantation",
"Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Museum",
"watercolor",
"Orangeburg, South Carolina",
"Beaufort",
"Williamsburg, Virginia"
] |
|
17093_NT | The Old Plantation | Focus on this artwork and explore the Artist and provenance. | For decades the identity of the artist was unknown, as was the painting's provenance before 1935, when it was purchased by Holger Cahill from Mary E. Lyles of Columbia, South Carolina. However, in 2010, Susan P. Shames, a librarian at Colonial Williamsburg, published a book titled The Old Plantation: The Artist Revealed in which she argues that the artist was the South Carolina plantation owner John Rose. Shames further suggests that the image depicts slaves on Rose's plantation in what is now Beaufort County, South Carolina, or one nearby.In 1775, Rose was named Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas in Beaufort District, an appointment implying his educated status and familiarity with governing officials. By 1795, he owned a lot in the town of Beaufort, as well as a rural, 813-acre tract on the Coosaw River in Prince William Parish. He employed slave labor to farm the latter property. At least 50 of these slaves have been identified by name, and he probably owned others. Shames suggests that the slaves and plantation depicted in the image were Rose's own. However, the broad river in the middle ground raises questions about whether Rose owned property on both sides of this natural boundary and, thus, whether he depicted his own dwelling and outbuildings in the background, or a neighbor's. Rose moved to the Dorchester area in present-day Colleton County in 1795, and he died in 1820 in Charleston after a fall from a horse.In his will, Rose left his watercolor of dancing slaves to his son-in-law, Thomas Davis Stall (1770–1848). According to Shames, it remained in the family for more than a hundred years, until it was finally sold at an auction of the estate of Rose Rowan Ellis Copes (1846–1927) of Orangeburg, South Carolina, probably in 1928 or 1929. It was bought either by an unidentified interim dealer or by Mary Earle Lyles (b. 1878) of Columbia. It was certainly in Lyles' possession by 1935, when it was purchased by Holger Cahill, acting as agent for Abby Aldrich Rockefeller. According to Lyles, however, it was painted on a plantation between Charleston and Orangeburg. A watermark on the paper has been identified as that used by the English papermaker James Whatman II (1741–1798) between 1777 and 1794.Rockefeller and Cahill transferred the painting to Williamsburg, Virginia, to be part of the Rockefeller collection at the Ludwell-Paradise House. It was later given to Colonial Williamsburg. The painting is currently held by the Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Museum in Williamsburg. | [
"Dorchester",
"South Carolina",
"Beaufort County",
"Artist",
"Abby Aldrich Rockefeller",
"Holger Cahill",
"Colleton County",
"Columbia, South Carolina",
"James Whatman",
"provenance",
"Colonial Williamsburg",
"Charleston",
"Beaufort County, South Carolina",
"watermark",
"artist",
"plantation",
"Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Museum",
"watercolor",
"Orangeburg, South Carolina",
"Beaufort",
"Williamsburg, Virginia"
] |
|
17094_T | The Old Plantation | Focus on The Old Plantation and explain the Works cited. | Colonial Williamsburg, "Old Plantation", EMuseum Online Catalog.
Bontemps, Alex (2001), The Punished Self: Surviving Slavery in the Colonial South, Cornell University Press, ISBN 0-8014-3521-8.
Epstein, Dena J. (Spring 1963), "Slave Music in the United States before 1860: A Survey of Sources (Part I)", Notes, 2nd series, Music Library Association, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 195–212, doi:10.2307/894726, JSTOR 894726
Epstein, Dena J. (September 1975), "The Folk Banjo: A Documentary History", Ethnomusicology, Society for Ethnomusicology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 347–371, doi:10.2307/850790, JSTOR 850790
Foster, Helen Bradley (1997), New Raiments of Self: African American Clothing in the Antebellum South, Berg Publishers, ISBN 1-85973-189-9.
Mazow, Leo G. (2005), Picturing the Banjo, Penn State Press, ISBN 0-271-02710-X.
Shames, Susan P. (2010), The Old Plantation: The Artist Revealed, Colonial Williamsburg, ISBN 978-0-87935-243-1.
Stillinger, Elizabeth (2002), "From Attics, Sheds, and Secondhand Shops: Collecting Folk Art in America, 1880–1940", in Clayton, Virginia Tuttle (ed.), Drawing on America's Past: Folk Art, Modernism, and the Index of American Design, University of North Carolina Press, pp. 45–60, ISBN 0-89468-295-4, retrieved June 17, 2011 | [
"Artist",
"Colonial Williamsburg"
] |
|
17094_NT | The Old Plantation | Focus on this artwork and explain the Works cited. | Colonial Williamsburg, "Old Plantation", EMuseum Online Catalog.
Bontemps, Alex (2001), The Punished Self: Surviving Slavery in the Colonial South, Cornell University Press, ISBN 0-8014-3521-8.
Epstein, Dena J. (Spring 1963), "Slave Music in the United States before 1860: A Survey of Sources (Part I)", Notes, 2nd series, Music Library Association, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 195–212, doi:10.2307/894726, JSTOR 894726
Epstein, Dena J. (September 1975), "The Folk Banjo: A Documentary History", Ethnomusicology, Society for Ethnomusicology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 347–371, doi:10.2307/850790, JSTOR 850790
Foster, Helen Bradley (1997), New Raiments of Self: African American Clothing in the Antebellum South, Berg Publishers, ISBN 1-85973-189-9.
Mazow, Leo G. (2005), Picturing the Banjo, Penn State Press, ISBN 0-271-02710-X.
Shames, Susan P. (2010), The Old Plantation: The Artist Revealed, Colonial Williamsburg, ISBN 978-0-87935-243-1.
Stillinger, Elizabeth (2002), "From Attics, Sheds, and Secondhand Shops: Collecting Folk Art in America, 1880–1940", in Clayton, Virginia Tuttle (ed.), Drawing on America's Past: Folk Art, Modernism, and the Index of American Design, University of North Carolina Press, pp. 45–60, ISBN 0-89468-295-4, retrieved June 17, 2011 | [
"Artist",
"Colonial Williamsburg"
] |
|
17095_T | Romeo and Juliet: the Tomb Scene | Explore the abstract of this artwork, Romeo and Juliet: the Tomb Scene. | Romeo and Juliet: the Tomb Scene is a painting by Joseph Wright of Derby, completed by 1790, exhibited in 1790 and 1791, shown in the Derby Exhibition of 1839 in the Mechanics' Institute, and now displayed in Derby Museum and Art Gallery. The painting exhibits Wright's famed skill with nocturnal and candlelit scenes. It depicts the moment in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet when Juliet, kneeling beside Romeo's body, hears a footstep and draws a dagger to kill herself. The line is "Yea, noise? Then I'll be brief. O happy dagger!" | [
"famed skill with nocturnal and candlelit scenes",
"Derby Exhibition of 1839",
"Derby Museum and Art Gallery",
"Romeo",
"Juliet",
"Romeo and Juliet",
"Shakespeare",
"Derby",
"Joseph Wright of Derby"
] |
|
17095_NT | Romeo and Juliet: the Tomb Scene | Explore the abstract of this artwork. | Romeo and Juliet: the Tomb Scene is a painting by Joseph Wright of Derby, completed by 1790, exhibited in 1790 and 1791, shown in the Derby Exhibition of 1839 in the Mechanics' Institute, and now displayed in Derby Museum and Art Gallery. The painting exhibits Wright's famed skill with nocturnal and candlelit scenes. It depicts the moment in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet when Juliet, kneeling beside Romeo's body, hears a footstep and draws a dagger to kill herself. The line is "Yea, noise? Then I'll be brief. O happy dagger!" | [
"famed skill with nocturnal and candlelit scenes",
"Derby Exhibition of 1839",
"Derby Museum and Art Gallery",
"Romeo",
"Juliet",
"Romeo and Juliet",
"Shakespeare",
"Derby",
"Joseph Wright of Derby"
] |
|
17096_T | Romeo and Juliet: the Tomb Scene | Focus on Romeo and Juliet: the Tomb Scene and discuss the History. | The idea for the painting came from Wright in December 1776 when he proposed a painting of "Juliet waking in the tomb". The commission was agreed by Alderman John Boydell for his "Shakespeare Gallery". However the work was the cause of a major row between them. Wright discovered that Boydell had classified the painters he had commissioned into two classes. Wright had discovered that he was assigned to the second class. He was to be paid 300 pounds for one painting and he was aggrieved to discover that some artists were being paid a thousand pounds. Wright's objection was more to do with the damage to his reputation than for the loss of income.Boydell was unrepentant and although Wright's painting of Romeo and Juliet was ready in time it was his painting of The Tempest (now lost) and a more modest scene of the storm in The Winter's Tale that were Wright's contribution to Boydell's gallery. Wright was left with this painting which is thought the best of the three he had created for the gallery. It could be that there was another disagreement that led to James Northcote creating a nine by eleven feet Romeo and Juliet tomb scene painting for Boydell which was very well received by gallery visitors.Wright had the painting exhibited in the Royal Academy in 1790 but he was not content as he said it had been badly presented due to its late arrival. However Wright felt privately that he had been snubbed by the Royal Academy and was happy to exhibit five paintings at the Society of Artists of Great Britain. Before the painting was exhibited at the Society the following year it was reworked by Wright but it still failed to sell. The painting is also known to have been included in an exhibition at Derby's Mechanics' Institute. Wright's painting was included in a painting of the 1839 exhibition by Samuel Rayner. Many of the paintings in Rayner's painting are thought to have come from the collection of Joseph Strutt. Many of the other artefacts in Rayner's painting are thought to have joined the early collection of Derby Museums, but this painting took many years before it rejoined Derby Museum's collection.
As a result of Wright's argument with Boydell the painting was rejected and stayed in Wright's possession. It was at Christie's in 1801 and in Derby for sale in 1810, but it failed to find a buyer. It was bought from Wright's executors and it was in the Oakes family from 1883 until it was purchased for Derby Museums for £33,250 in 1981. | [
"The Winter's Tale",
"Shakespeare Gallery",
"The Tempest",
"Society of Artists of Great Britain",
"Joseph Strutt",
"Royal Academy",
"Samuel Rayner",
"Romeo",
"Juliet",
"left",
"Christie's",
"John Boydell",
"Romeo and Juliet",
"Shakespeare",
"Derby",
"James Northcote",
"Alderman John Boydell"
] |
|
17096_NT | Romeo and Juliet: the Tomb Scene | Focus on this artwork and discuss the History. | The idea for the painting came from Wright in December 1776 when he proposed a painting of "Juliet waking in the tomb". The commission was agreed by Alderman John Boydell for his "Shakespeare Gallery". However the work was the cause of a major row between them. Wright discovered that Boydell had classified the painters he had commissioned into two classes. Wright had discovered that he was assigned to the second class. He was to be paid 300 pounds for one painting and he was aggrieved to discover that some artists were being paid a thousand pounds. Wright's objection was more to do with the damage to his reputation than for the loss of income.Boydell was unrepentant and although Wright's painting of Romeo and Juliet was ready in time it was his painting of The Tempest (now lost) and a more modest scene of the storm in The Winter's Tale that were Wright's contribution to Boydell's gallery. Wright was left with this painting which is thought the best of the three he had created for the gallery. It could be that there was another disagreement that led to James Northcote creating a nine by eleven feet Romeo and Juliet tomb scene painting for Boydell which was very well received by gallery visitors.Wright had the painting exhibited in the Royal Academy in 1790 but he was not content as he said it had been badly presented due to its late arrival. However Wright felt privately that he had been snubbed by the Royal Academy and was happy to exhibit five paintings at the Society of Artists of Great Britain. Before the painting was exhibited at the Society the following year it was reworked by Wright but it still failed to sell. The painting is also known to have been included in an exhibition at Derby's Mechanics' Institute. Wright's painting was included in a painting of the 1839 exhibition by Samuel Rayner. Many of the paintings in Rayner's painting are thought to have come from the collection of Joseph Strutt. Many of the other artefacts in Rayner's painting are thought to have joined the early collection of Derby Museums, but this painting took many years before it rejoined Derby Museum's collection.
As a result of Wright's argument with Boydell the painting was rejected and stayed in Wright's possession. It was at Christie's in 1801 and in Derby for sale in 1810, but it failed to find a buyer. It was bought from Wright's executors and it was in the Oakes family from 1883 until it was purchased for Derby Museums for £33,250 in 1981. | [
"The Winter's Tale",
"Shakespeare Gallery",
"The Tempest",
"Society of Artists of Great Britain",
"Joseph Strutt",
"Royal Academy",
"Samuel Rayner",
"Romeo",
"Juliet",
"left",
"Christie's",
"John Boydell",
"Romeo and Juliet",
"Shakespeare",
"Derby",
"James Northcote",
"Alderman John Boydell"
] |
|
17097_T | The Bathers (Renoir) | How does The Bathers (Renoir) elucidate its abstract? | The Bathers (French: Les Baigneuses) is an oil painting on canvas made between 1918 and 1919 by the French painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir. After being given to the State by his three sons in 1923, it is currently kept at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris. It is representative of Renoir's late work period (1892–1919).
There are two groups of naked women: two models lying in the foreground plus three bathers in the background, on the right. One of the models of this painting is Andrée Hessling, who became the first wife of Renoir's son, Jean. The natural setting displayed in the painting was the large garden of the house owned by the painter in Cagnes-sur-Mer.In the painting, Renoir removed any reference to the contemporary world and showed "a timeless nature". The theme of the bather is predominant in the final season of Renoir's paintings: the women portrayed by the painter are free and uninhibited. These bathers are "melted in the nature and the forms merge with the trees, flowers and the shares of red water".The painting received criticism because of "the enormousness of the legs and arms, the weakness of flesh, and the pinkish color of the models". | [
"Cagnes-sur-Mer",
"Jean",
"Musée d'Orsay",
"Andrée Hessling",
"Pierre-Auguste Renoir"
] |
|
17097_NT | The Bathers (Renoir) | How does this artwork elucidate its abstract? | The Bathers (French: Les Baigneuses) is an oil painting on canvas made between 1918 and 1919 by the French painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir. After being given to the State by his three sons in 1923, it is currently kept at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris. It is representative of Renoir's late work period (1892–1919).
There are two groups of naked women: two models lying in the foreground plus three bathers in the background, on the right. One of the models of this painting is Andrée Hessling, who became the first wife of Renoir's son, Jean. The natural setting displayed in the painting was the large garden of the house owned by the painter in Cagnes-sur-Mer.In the painting, Renoir removed any reference to the contemporary world and showed "a timeless nature". The theme of the bather is predominant in the final season of Renoir's paintings: the women portrayed by the painter are free and uninhibited. These bathers are "melted in the nature and the forms merge with the trees, flowers and the shares of red water".The painting received criticism because of "the enormousness of the legs and arms, the weakness of flesh, and the pinkish color of the models". | [
"Cagnes-sur-Mer",
"Jean",
"Musée d'Orsay",
"Andrée Hessling",
"Pierre-Auguste Renoir"
] |
|
17098_T | For the Love of God | Focus on For the Love of God and analyze the abstract. | For the Love of God is a sculpture by artist Damien Hirst produced in 2007. It consists of a platinum cast of an 18th-century human skull encrusted with 8,601 flawless diamonds, including a pear-shaped pink diamond located in the forehead that is known as the Skull Star Diamond. The skull's teeth are original, and were purchased by Hirst in London. The artwork is a memento mori, or reminder of the mortality of the viewer.
In 2007, art historian Rudi Fuchs described the work as "out of this world, celestial almost. It proclaims victory over decay. At the same time it represents death as something infinitely more relentless. Compared to the tearful sadness of a vanitas scene, the diamond skull is glory itself." Costing £12 million to produce, the work was placed on its inaugural display at the White Cube gallery in London in an exhibition Beyond Belief, with an asking price of £50 million. This would have been the highest price ever paid for a single work by a living artist. In January 2022, Hirst stated that he still co-owned the sculpture, and that it was in storage in London. | [
"White Cube",
"Rudi Fuchs",
"human skull",
"memento mori",
"platinum",
"London",
"vanitas",
"Damien Hirst"
] |
|
17098_NT | For the Love of God | Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract. | For the Love of God is a sculpture by artist Damien Hirst produced in 2007. It consists of a platinum cast of an 18th-century human skull encrusted with 8,601 flawless diamonds, including a pear-shaped pink diamond located in the forehead that is known as the Skull Star Diamond. The skull's teeth are original, and were purchased by Hirst in London. The artwork is a memento mori, or reminder of the mortality of the viewer.
In 2007, art historian Rudi Fuchs described the work as "out of this world, celestial almost. It proclaims victory over decay. At the same time it represents death as something infinitely more relentless. Compared to the tearful sadness of a vanitas scene, the diamond skull is glory itself." Costing £12 million to produce, the work was placed on its inaugural display at the White Cube gallery in London in an exhibition Beyond Belief, with an asking price of £50 million. This would have been the highest price ever paid for a single work by a living artist. In January 2022, Hirst stated that he still co-owned the sculpture, and that it was in storage in London. | [
"White Cube",
"Rudi Fuchs",
"human skull",
"memento mori",
"platinum",
"London",
"vanitas",
"Damien Hirst"
] |
|
17099_T | For the Love of God | In For the Love of God, how is the Exhibition discussed? | On 1 June 2007, For the Love of God went on display in an illuminated glass case in a darkened room on the top floor of the White Cube gallery in St James's, London with heavy security. It was reported on 11 June 2007 that the singer George Michael and his partner Kenny Goss were interested in purchasing the piece for around £50 million.During November–December 2008, Hirst exhibited the diamond skull at the historic Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, amidst public controversy. The skull was exhibited next to an exhibition of paintings from the collection of the museum that were selected and curated by Hirst. According to Wim Pijbes, the museum director, there wasn't controversy amongst the board members. He explained that the exhibition "will attract people—and give a new aspect to the image of the Rijksmuseum as well. It boosts our image. Of course, we do the Old Masters but we are not a 'yesterday institution'. It's for now. And Damien Hirst shows this in a very strong way." A Belgian journalist in response remarked how the installation of the diamond skull at the Rijks was "an intentionally quite controversial project".For the Love of God was also displayed in the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, Italy, and at Tate Modern, London, between 4 April 2012 and 25 June 2012.
The work was displayed at Hirst's first solo exhibition in the Middle East, at the Relics Exhibition of Doha, Qatar from 10 October 2013 to 22 January 2014.Between 16 September and 15 November 2015 the skull was displayed at Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art in Oslo, Norway.Between the 26th October 2023 and the 28th of January 2024 the skull is displayed at the Museum of Urban and Contemporary Art in Munich, Germany. | [
"Doha",
"White Cube",
"Palazzo Vecchio",
"Amsterdam",
"Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art",
"Museum of Urban and Contemporary Art",
"Tate Modern",
"St James's",
"London",
"George Michael",
"Damien Hirst",
"Doha, Qatar",
"Rijksmuseum",
"Kenny Goss",
"Netherlands"
] |
|
17099_NT | For the Love of God | In this artwork, how is the Exhibition discussed? | On 1 June 2007, For the Love of God went on display in an illuminated glass case in a darkened room on the top floor of the White Cube gallery in St James's, London with heavy security. It was reported on 11 June 2007 that the singer George Michael and his partner Kenny Goss were interested in purchasing the piece for around £50 million.During November–December 2008, Hirst exhibited the diamond skull at the historic Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, amidst public controversy. The skull was exhibited next to an exhibition of paintings from the collection of the museum that were selected and curated by Hirst. According to Wim Pijbes, the museum director, there wasn't controversy amongst the board members. He explained that the exhibition "will attract people—and give a new aspect to the image of the Rijksmuseum as well. It boosts our image. Of course, we do the Old Masters but we are not a 'yesterday institution'. It's for now. And Damien Hirst shows this in a very strong way." A Belgian journalist in response remarked how the installation of the diamond skull at the Rijks was "an intentionally quite controversial project".For the Love of God was also displayed in the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, Italy, and at Tate Modern, London, between 4 April 2012 and 25 June 2012.
The work was displayed at Hirst's first solo exhibition in the Middle East, at the Relics Exhibition of Doha, Qatar from 10 October 2013 to 22 January 2014.Between 16 September and 15 November 2015 the skull was displayed at Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art in Oslo, Norway.Between the 26th October 2023 and the 28th of January 2024 the skull is displayed at the Museum of Urban and Contemporary Art in Munich, Germany. | [
"Doha",
"White Cube",
"Palazzo Vecchio",
"Amsterdam",
"Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art",
"Museum of Urban and Contemporary Art",
"Tate Modern",
"St James's",
"London",
"George Michael",
"Damien Hirst",
"Doha, Qatar",
"Rijksmuseum",
"Kenny Goss",
"Netherlands"
] |
|
17100_T | For the Love of God | Focus on For the Love of God and explore the Sale. | Hirst said that the work was sold on 30 August 2007, for £50 million, to an anonymous consortium. Hirst claimed he had sold it for the full asking price, in cash, leaving no paper trail. The consortium that bought the piece included Hirst himself.In the 6 February 2012 issue of Time magazine, Hirst elaborated, in his "10 Questions" interview: "In the end I covered my fabrication and a few other costs by selling a third of it to an investment group, who are anonymous."In January 2022, Hirst stated the sculpture was still owned by him, along with the White Cube gallery and undisclosed investors, and was in storage in a Hatton Garden vault in London. Artnet took this to mean that the 2007 sale did not actually happen. | [
"White Cube",
"Artnet",
"London",
"Hatton Garden",
"Time"
] |
|
17100_NT | For the Love of God | Focus on this artwork and explore the Sale. | Hirst said that the work was sold on 30 August 2007, for £50 million, to an anonymous consortium. Hirst claimed he had sold it for the full asking price, in cash, leaving no paper trail. The consortium that bought the piece included Hirst himself.In the 6 February 2012 issue of Time magazine, Hirst elaborated, in his "10 Questions" interview: "In the end I covered my fabrication and a few other costs by selling a third of it to an investment group, who are anonymous."In January 2022, Hirst stated the sculpture was still owned by him, along with the White Cube gallery and undisclosed investors, and was in storage in a Hatton Garden vault in London. Artnet took this to mean that the 2007 sale did not actually happen. | [
"White Cube",
"Artnet",
"London",
"Hatton Garden",
"Time"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.