Michelangelo the Storyteller?

In the article, Michelangelo’s Crescendo Communicating the Sistine Chapel Ceiling by Peter Gillgren, he asks the question of why Michelangelo’s work did not receive attention from art historians in the past. Gillgren shows that some historians like Hienrich Wölfflin believe that Michelangelo changed his style of painting after seeing what he had done to make the scenes more unified. This led to each scene to have larger figures of human beings. However as Gillgren shows, Michelangelo’s purpose for the figures in the Sistine Chapel starting small and ending big is to show the millions of sinners that come to worship Christ, as they witness God’s work from the beginning.

Michelangelo did a fresco style on the ceiling with cool colors to create a mood of relaxation. The use of blues and greens has a subtle impact as observers walk in the Sistine Chapel. They feel engulf in a serene world of peace which in fact is how people should be when they come into the house of the Lord.

Gillgren supports the idea that Michelangelo had a plan when started painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The idea of painting the ceiling was brought up in 1506, but Michelangelo did not get the contract till 1508. During that time Michelangelo thought about how he was going to design the ceiling, as reported there is “a sketch for the cartoon-head of Haman,” (Gillgren, 210). One idea that supports Michelangelo’s crescendo in iconology as it relates to theological ideas. Charles de Tolnay states: ‘”the spectator advancing from the main entrance toward the altar experiences from history to history a gradual ascension: freed from his bodily prison he leaves his earthly existence and attains a state of absolute freedom in infinity. The divine origin of the human soul becomes manifest,”’ (Gillgren, 211). So, when a person makes his way to the altar he is reminded how life is created and the awesome power of God.

As people enter the chapel the first scene, they notice is Noah’s sorrow. Michelangelo shows that all people come into the Lord’s house with some sin or pain they are trying to wipe away from their life. Therefore, the scene represents having to face God, which is extremely religious and biblical in context. As worshippers and observers make their way to the altar, the images show less action and take one back to the beginning of time. Once at the altar people witness the painting of the creation of Adam. I believe Michelangelo did this to show that we may all come into the house of the Lord together but in the end we must face our creator (God) alone. The ceiling starts out with several scenes and ends with Adam and God in an intimate relationship. This proves that Michelangelo wanted people to feel inspired by God, as was he, when walking through the Sistine Chapel.

Michelangelo created a masterpiece for all to marvel at. He wanted to create a place where people did not feel intimidated when they came to worship and he accomplished his goal. Michelangelo saw that paintings are another way for people to learn about the great stories in the bible. That is part of the reason why the Sistine Chapel Ceiling is looked at so much, beyond Michelangelo’s creative genius.

Works Cited

Gillgren, Peter. Michelangelo’s Crescendo Communicating the Sistine Chapel Ceiling. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713788718

Agree To Disagree?

Upon seeing an art exhibit featuring Monet’s work along with two other artists, Adrian Lewis, an art critic, felt she had a grasp on what the exhibitionist intended for the showcase of Monet’s work. Lewis indicates that the aspect of light found in all three paintings in the exhibition tie them together for, “this device indicates the plot underlying the exhibition’s premise: that an impelling evolution connects stylistically three oeuvres in which light itself struggles to break free.” In disagreement with this statement, I find that Monet’s works are hardly struggling to evoke the feeling of light and radiance emitting from them, to the contrary, his paintings are the epitome of the use of light and perspective in art.

Lewis’s statement is hard to fathom, as many of Monet’s paintings are focused on one central aspect: light. The light found in Monet’s works is hardly struggling to break free, in fact, in many of his landscapes the light is what draws the viewer in to begin with. Monet’s painting, Impression, Sunrise lent its name to the Impressionist movement, a movement which is characterized by intense lighting and unique perspectives.

Monet’s landscapes of the scenic views from around his French home all have a variation of the light theme in common. Far from trying to suppress a light and airy feel to his paintings, Monet once remarked that he, “wished to paint the air.” It is hard to argue against the artist’s intentions. Even though many critics take it upon themselves to interpret works of art, what the artist meant while painting the piece ultimately produces what is accepted as the true meaning. Furthermore, Monet utilized other techniques to draw in viewers, such as putting unique perceptions on different landscapes, and not by relying on a dark and suppressing style of painting which was utilized by many of his contemporaries.

For proof of this light suppression, Lewis points to the fog found in several of Monet’s paintings. The fog, however, is not representative to a suppression of light. In contrast, it allows the viewer to look even more closely at the painting in recognition of the objects. Monet’s use of fog generally came into focus when he painted the lakes and other small ponds around his home, which are landscapes that it would be hard to admit that a sense of dreariness did not abide.

Also in these paintings, however, Monet may paint the sky and general upper half of the painting much darker than the actual body of water itself. In Monet’s painting, Water Lilies, the water lilies themselves seem to be radiating light throughout the rest of the landscape.

One of Monet’s favorite subjects, sunrises, can hardly be noted as not having enough light. A sunrise is the shedding of light on all things, and Monet painted them liberally, with warm colors. He did not shy away from having to shed light on things, in fact, he embraced it.

Monet’s paintings can hardly be classified as lifeless and dull. To the contrary, Monet was a founder of the Impressionist movement, and began the movement’s traditions of focusing on intense lighting. His use of light is unique, because by playing around with it, Monet was able to give the viewer totally separate vantage points to look at and understand his works. By taking away Monet’s light, it would be in effect taking away his work.

Total Shit or Total Masterpiece??

Much controversy surrounds artist Chris Ofili and his depiction of The Holy Virgin Mary. Representing the Virgin Mary as a black woman having elephant dung on her breast and cut outs of genitalia from pornographic magazines floating in the background, Ofili’s painting obviously invites criticism. The public gladly accepts this invitation as criticism of Ofili’s contemporary work can be found everywhere. Jerry Saltz, author of “Chris Ofili’s Holy Virgin Mary,” an article on artnet.com, criticizes Ofili’s painting saying it is “not his best painting,” and does not seem to understand Ofili’s reasoning behind the unusual depiction. However, in my opinion while Ofili’s The Holy Virgin Mary is very unusual and somewhat repulsive it is one of his best pieces and the iconography he uses has actual meaning behind it.

Upon first glance at The Holy Virgin Mary the viewer realizes that the artist has represented the Virgin Mary with a black woman. Saltz states in his article that this face has “almost always and only been white.” While this is true, I feel that Ofili depicted the Virgin Mary as African-American because he wanted to address the fact that there is no proof that the Virgin Mary was in fact white. Ofili himself, being a black man is embracing his heritage with his painting and showing pride in his race. Saltz also criticizes Ofili’s work saying that he is mixing the sacred with the profane with his use of pornographic images and elephant dung. However, according to Sean Redmond of the Brooklyn Museum of Art elephant dung is an African fertility symbol, giving Virgin Mary the aspects of a fertility goddess. I feel that this shows creativity in the work of Ofili because it requires the viewer to see unusual objects through the eyes of another culture instead of merely taking the painting at face value. Criticizing Ofili’s painting further, Saltz argues that Ofili paints in a loopy, cartoonish, semiabstract style, as if the viewer is in a dream. In my opinion, Saltz is not viewing Ofili’s work in the correct way. Ofili’s style of painting incorporates three layers of different painting techniques with collages and three dimensional elements. The background of the painting is yellowish-orange while the forefront is blue and green. This layering of cool colors on top of warm colors does not appear to be “cartoonish” at all. Since the Virgin Mary is painted in light colors set on a warmer background it is easy to see what Ofili wants the viewer to focus on. Often in cartoon drawings the main focus or character appears to be washed out, or blends with the background, and I don’t see this happening in his painting. At the end of his article Saltz again criticizes Ofili claiming that this painting begins an “uneven phase of his work” where he abandons his decorative all-over wild style for specific images. To me Ofili has done exactly the opposite in this painting. He seems to have embraced his decorative style by splashing icons across the canvas and representing the main focus as a collage. Using a collage reveals his ability to bring different shapes or colors together to create one picture, and this is how the image of the Virgin Mary is seen.

To sum up my disagreement with the critics of Chris Ofili’s The Holy Virgin Mary, I feel that his painting was very unique and took much creativity to come up with. Unlike Saltz, who does not seem to find a deep meaning to any part of Ofili’s painting I found that there are many symbols in his work that require further observation. This conclusion could be the case with many works of contemporary artists and maybe we should all take a deeper look before turning the page.

For more of Ofili's paintings check this out!!
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~museum/armory/ofili.b.jpghttp://xroads.virginia.edu/~museum/armory/ofili.b.jpg

Works Cited:

Saltz, Jerry. “Chris Ofili’s Holy Virgin Mary.” ArtNet. (2007) 10 April, 2007. http://www.artnet.com/magazine_pre2000/features/saltz/saltz10-08-99a.asp

Master of Renaissance Art....or A Disgrace to Christainty?

There are those who see Michelangelo’s portrait on Sistine Chapel ceiling as an excellent interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Author James Romaine writes in “Scripture on the Ceiling,” that Michelangelo created an artwork in which people can come and worship. As John Writes mention that Michelangelo is “the least understood of great works of art," (Romaine, 1). Michelangelo wanted to tell a story of human action that foretold the story of the New Testament. Michelangelo’s fresco artwork combined Renaissance’s idea of unity between “Christian doctrines with philosophy of classical antiquity,” (Romaine, 2). However, when worshippers enter the chapel the stories from the book in Genesis are in reverse chronological order. According to Michelangelo, he wanted to show Noah’s shame to represent the shame people feel when they sin. Later Michelangelo was called back to do the Last Judgment to show the coming back of Christ and the various saints.

On October 13, 1541, Michelangelo’s picture of the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel was revealed. From this moment picture showed unity amongst the saints. However, Michelangelo’s artwork also faced harsh criticism for several saints being nude, especially Saint Catherine of Alexandria. According to Cynthia Stollhans in her article, “Michelangelo’s Nude Saint Catherine,” understands Michelangelo’s portrayal of Catherine as a representation of how she was tortured several times throughout her life. Michelangelo faces harsh criticism for his depiction of Saint Catherine nude, even though, he follows traditional views.

Even though Michelangelo’s depiction of the Last Judgment received high praise from Pope Paul III at the time it was first reveal that did not prevent the portrait to be altered later in history. In 1564 according to Pope Pius IV, he felt that the saints “should be represented with decency and decorum,” (Stollhans, 1). So, Danielle da Volterra repainted Saint Catherine in a green dress. However, Michelangelo’s original work loses its appeal and does not have a same impact that it once had on an audience. For instance, Nino Serini wrote to his patron, Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga of Mantua, declaring the painting a work of beauty. At the same time poet, Nicolo Martelli was so moved by the artwork that he wrote two sonnets and a madrigal (Stollhans, 1). Still this did not prevent much criticism believing that the painting is indecent.

In 1564 Giovanni Gilio points out that in the Last Judgment that Michelangelo has placed Catherine “the saint of young, nubile girls” and Blaise “the saint of marriageable boys,” (Stollhans, 1). He claims that Michelangelo placed the two saints together as a way to make people laugh. However, he forgets that Michelangelo depicts the posture and the lack of clothing of Saint Catherine from Greek, Latin and Italian manuscripts. Ironically, as there are several stories that describe Saint Catherine nude, an author named Pietro Aretino opposed Michelangelo’s interpretation of Saint Catherine, however; he has written a book in which retells the story of how she was tortured and stripped of her clothes. As recorded since the 13th century Saint Catherine has been shown nude or partially nude.

Still what is more daring in Michelangelo’s painting is the position of Saint Catherine’s body. In the Last Judgment Saint Catherine is hunched over with her head down as she picks up the broken wheel. Michelangelo shows why Catherine is considered a saint amongst the others.

Works Cited

Romaine, James. Scripture on the Ceiling. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=9&hid=6&sid=6c48854b-ac40-4b3d-81f4-6debfbf6b754%40sessionmgr2.

Stollhans, Cynthia. Michelangelo’s Nude Saint Catherine of Alexandria. http://www.jstor.org/view/02707993/ap040036/04a00070/0.

From Campbell's to fame...

Andy Warhol could be considered one of America’s front runners in the American Pop Art Movement of the 60’s and 70’s. While he was an eccentric man who expressed himself in major artwork, he also had many other talents, including, commercial illustrating, filmmaking, music industry producer, and writer. He was a celebrity in his own time and used many famous icons such as Marilyn Monroe, Muhammad Ali, and Elvis as inspiration. He founded “The Factory,” his personal studio, early on in his career and later painted Liz Taylor, Judy Garland, Michael Jackson, and countless other pop icons. From the creation of the Campbell’s Soup labels to the contribution of a new era in American Art, Warhol became a quite influential man. While Andy Warhol, the man, is important, the artwork he produced is also influential and captured a large part of America’s pop culture.

In “Soup Can Mainia,” the author discusses Warhol’s influence on culture through his creation of the Campbell’s soup label and other major works of art. The nature of Warhol’s work is made clear when the author points out, “the repetitive nature of many of his compositions and series suggests an art of the assembly line, and Warhol’s expressed idea to make use of mass production techniques such as screen printing for his canvas and prints” (Kinsman, 1). This being the thesis the author goes on to discuss Warhol’s use of projection to paint directly onto the stretched canvas. Warhol wanted to distance himself from the Abstract Expressionist by adding a human touch to his artwork (Kinsman, 1). After frustrating attempts at cartoons, Warhol turned to a friend who suggested he use an everyday subject, like a can of soup. He then set out to create labels for Campbell Soup Company and gained instant fame (Kinsman, 1). The labels he created are the ones still seen on the cans today. That the screen print of a soup can could be considered art astonished many people and he became an instant success (Kinsman, 1). In a later interview, Warhol said that his favorite piece remained as the Campbell Soup labels (Kinsman, 1).

While this author credited Warhol’s fast fame to the soup can label, it seems that others believe his later works with celebrities to be much more important. In a contrasting article, the Artchive, an online art journal, states (referring to the period after the Campbell’s work), “From then on, most of Warhol's best work was done over a span of about six years, finishing in 1968, when he was shot. And it all flowed from one central insight: that in a culture glutted with information, where most people experience most things at second or third hand through TV and print, through images that become banal and disassociated by repeated again and again and again, there is role for affectless art” (Artchive, 1). They go on to support this idea by saying that Warhol was a conduit for a collective American state of mind in which celebrity had completely replaced both sacredness and solidity (Artchive, 1). While Kinsman argued that Warhol tried to add a human touch to his work, the Artchive suggests that Warhol wanted to create affectless art. “This affectlessness, this fascinated and yet indifferent take on the object, became the key to Warhol's work; it is there in the repetition of stars' faces…and as a record of the condition of being an uninvolved spectator it speaks eloquently about the condition of image overload in a media saturated culture” (Artchive, 1). This website has a distinct opinion about what Warhol’s work portrays and they also say that what some thought of as a humanizing touch was simply “routine error and entropy” since Warhol never bothered to touch up his work or correct his mistakes.

While there is no doubt that Andy Warhol gained fame with Campbell’s, what his artwork portrays is left to the individual. It is certain that he captured a Golden Age in America’s history, painting famous people that we still hear about today. As a contributor to the American Pop Art Movement, his eccentricity as a person contributed to the uniqueness of his work. Some people do not appreciate his work, but others believe him brilliant, whatever one’s opinion it is certain he had a profound impact on modern American art.

Works Cited:

Kinsman, Simon. "Soup Can Mania." Artonview (2007): 38-39. Wilson Web. 3 Apr. 2007 .
Andy Warhol. 2007. The Artchive. 3 Apr. 2007 .

I'm Impressed

Seeing art in person creates a new appreciation and interest for it, just like going to a concert and hearing a relatively unknown opening act that makes you want to go home and download his music as well. Upon visiting the Musée D’Orsay in France for the first time, it made more of an impact on me than the other more well-known French museum, the Louvre. For this reason, I became interested in the Impressionist movement and its defining artists.
Impressionism, a 19th-century art movement, focuses on noticeable brushstrokes, intense lighting, ordinary landscapes, and unique perspectives. When most people think of Impressionism, they think of Monet, and this is fairly accurate as the term Impressionism originates from one of Monet’s works, Impression, Sunrise.
Parisian-born Claude Monet is the prime example of many of the art works of Impressionism. Perhaps Monet’s more recognizable paintings are of various scenic landscapes from around his home, particularly his garden in Giverny, France and the water lilies, bridge and pond surrounding his estate.
Perception, art critic Mark Rollins says, is the most important aspect of appreciating and understanding Monet’s works. Monet stated, “I am pursuing the impossible. I want to paint the air.” Rollins feels that in order to do this, Monet must have been able to change the capacity in which people viewed his paintings.
In many instances, the public feels that it is practically impossible to agree on only one correct interpretation. However, most can also agree that the artist’s intention for the painting can provide the closest standard for what is correct or incorrect.
Rollins feels that Monet painted with the idea in the back of his mind that he had to change the way people normally looked at things. By seeing things in a different way, and paying primary attention to objects that would not normally stand out, Monet changed the way people viewed art. Rollins notes that by doing this, Monet achieved his goal, he was able, “to paint the invisible air,” which in a sense, “is to paint other, visible things in such a way as to exploit constraints on the visual system to produce a rich array of atmospheric, color, and shading effects.”
Adrian Lewis, another art critic, also agrees that Monet kept in mind the way his audience would be viewing his paintings. In order to achieve something different, Lewis feels that Monet worked exceptionally well with light in his paintings, which introduced various vantage points. Lewis notes that, “Monet’s impasted strokes lodged within the thinly swept and scrubbed paint indicate an aesthetic of embodying ‘sensations’ in the present,” which is to say Monet tried to bring out emotions from the people that contemplated his works.
Both critics agree that Monet was an exceptional Impressionist artist. His work attracted a new audience who wanted to feel “involved” in paintings and those that wanted to have something evoked, thought or feelings, upon looking at a piece of art. Monet’s beautiful surroundings did nothing to hinder his creativity, and both critics also agree there is no harm in regarding Monet as the father of the Impressionist movement.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8357.2005.489_1.x

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13047940&site=ehost-live

Appreciate the Arts !

Have you ever observed a piece of art and wondered if there were personal experiences and feelings that prompted the artist into creating it? This is a question that continues to arise among those who view the paintings of contemporary artist Keith Haring. Haring, a Pennsylvania native who died from AIDS at the young age of 31 expressed his own feelings and personal battles of living in New York during the 1980s through his artwork. The art history journal Art in America published an article in April of 1998 that brought to life an exhibit of Haring’s work at the Whitney Museum of American Art. The author, Brooks Adams said that Haring’s work evoked the exuberance both artistic and sexual of 80’s New York, and later went on to explain how Haring seem to include his own personal battles with AIDS in his pieces. Many other Haring “followers” feel the same, including Katherine Dieckmann, a writer for the ArtForum who spoke of the same exhibit. While she seemed to shed a different light on Haring’s work she agreed with Adams that Haring’s work made the observer aware of darker forces (drugs, AIDS, and the cruelty of daily living.) In agreement with these two writers, I feel that the work of Keith Haring has a deeper meaning that most people fail to see.

Brooks Adams, author of “Keith Haring: Radiant Picturesque,” an article in Art in America wrote about Haring’s exhibition in Miami’s Whitney Museum of American Art calling it a “traveling retrospective.” He praised the fact that Haring displayed 80’s New York through subway drawings, paintings, sculptures and historical ephemera. He claimed the exhibition had state-of-the art design and made the observer feel as if they were journeying through a dark labyrinth. As I stated before, Adams seemed to wonder what personal experiences went into Haring’s masterpieces as soon as he entered the introductory room. Adams described it as being the sunny exterior of an American clapboard house which he took to be the Pennsylvania home that Haring grew up. From then on it was as if the author of this article was traveling through the life of Keith Haring. He ended in a long black tunnel which he assumed suggested loneliness and isolation that Haring felt when he was diagnosed with AIDS at the young age of 31. Brooks Adams praised Haring for his daring creations and his ability to reveal his own feelings and experiences through his works. When observing an untitled painting created by Haring in 1982 I was able to recognize this ability of expression. The painting depicts two males embracing one another as if they are in love. Considering Haring’s personal life I assumed that he was expressing his feelings of love towards other men. Haring uses this self-expression in many of his pieces which make them come alive for the observer.

Similarly, Katherine Dieckmann, the author of “Keith Haring - art exhibit at the Whitney Museum, New York,” included in a 1997 issue of ArtForum commended Haring for his work but for other various reasons. Dieckmann described the Haring exhibit as an “array of iconography”, that embraced Haring’s pop passions as a form of libidinal projection and release. She defended Haring against his critics who often said that his work was nothing more than “pleasant downtown wallpaper.” Instead, Dieckmann saw a deeper meaning behind Haring’s decorative obsession. She felt as if Haring’s pieces were calling for widespread alertness and concern. This calling due to the fact that he felt others should become aware of life’s cruelties, including drugs and AIDS. Dieckmann feels others should embrace Haring’s use of effervescence and realism or the point of his work will be missed altogether.

Overall, the work of contemporary artist Keith Haring can be analyzed and compared to his own struggles with life. Through the eyes of two authors from prominent artistic journals it was made known that Haring was only trying to make observers become more aware of the pains and struggles some people must face each day. His use of varying line, shape and iconography helped him to project his own everyday struggle with the AIDS virus and critics should be aware of this before they begin bashing his pieces.

Works Cited:

Adams, Brooks. “Keith Haring: Radiant Picturesque.” Art in America. 86.4 (1998): 94-97 Bibliography of the History of Art. Eureka. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Undergraduate Library. 4 April 2007. http://eureka.rlg.org/Eureka/zgate2.prod

Dieckmann, Katherine. “Keith Haring-Art Exhibit at the Whitney Museum, New York.” ArtForum. (1997) Find Articles. LookSmart. 4 April 2007 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_n1_v36/ai_20197592

Keith Haring. The Artists.Org. 4 April 2007 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_n1_v36/ai_20197592