Is this the Light of the World to which you refer?
I think I agree with you, although there may other works that are more maudlin. I like the comment about Santa Claus too.
Posted on 08/22/2005 8:22:58 AM PDT by Republicanprofessor
Is this the Light of the World to which you refer?
I think I agree with you, although there may other works that are more maudlin. I like the comment about Santa Claus too.
Maybe it was the setting (in a dark vaulted space), maybe it was the fact that the picture itself is rather dark (it was REALLY lit up for this photo), but it didn't seem sicky-sweet to me. Now, you want sicky-sweet. . .
B. Plockhorst, "Christ Blessing the Little Children"
V. Vogelstein, "Suffer the Little Children"
(You can always count on sentimental artists to paint THAT Bible verse . . . just google it and you'll go into immediate hyperglycemia . . . )
And the Kincaid reference is a really low blow. Has that charlatan ever actually painted a human figure in any of those tacky things of his?
But you do like the "Magdalen Tower", don't you? The sky is a tour de force. (I guess you might extend your strictures on cherubs to choirboys, though?)
That's the one. I remember reading that 'Light of the World' was unveiled to the public with great acclaim at the turn of the century.
I guess my dislike of Holman Hunt and company seems odd, given how much I love 'realistic' artists who capture texture, like Rembrandt, whose painted jewelry, for example, looked real enough to steal. I guess because I'm drawn to figurative works of power and depth. Rembrandt's oil portraits (and figurative renderings in any medium) literally pulsed with life and insight. Hunt and company's people looked posed and affected: "Still Life with Humans".
Jesus as Santa Claus--it fits! These paintings wear me out. I think they are probably technically drawn perfectly but there is just something I don't like about this era. I know Van Rox will post his favorite website with all those women and cherubs but I get tired just gazing at them. However, the Pollocks and Rothko's are so soothing to me. I know that the Pollock's are frenetic but somehow they really aren't, to me. I just don't get tired looking at them and find something new everytime I see them. Same for Rothko and his color blocks. Just me and my unsophisticated taste.
Republicanprofessor, this is slightly off topic, but would you be willing to offer a definition for the term "classical art?" There is a discussion/argument going on over at wetcanvas.com RE that subject and I'd be interested in hearing your insights.
My personal opinion is that classical art can include all the stuff starting with the classical Greeks, Polyklitos et al, and continuing up through the academics of the 19th century, but not including the impressionists. Including though Norman Rockwell, Andrew Loomis, Harold Speed, etc. And also I believe that some comic book art can be included in the classical tradition, superheroes, etc. "Modern" art is a conscious effort not to follow in the classical tradition, I think.
I think of the sky in that painting as a sort of Rococo homage,
Do you ever see the evening sky as Rococo sometimes? I love to connect what I see in nature to what I know of art history: the storm skies of Ruisdael, the fluffy Rococo skies, etc.
Re Rembrandt: his work is always awesome. I don't think anyone has surpassed the depth of emotion and power of love in his works. I love the Prodigal Son particularly. I've had only one student who did not like the work. She had an issue with prodigal children, since one person in their family had dissed the rest and left the nest. I forget the rest of the story; I just remember she had an aversion to the painting. But forgiveness is essential. And I don't think anyone has done more powerful religious (i.e. Christian) paintings than Rembrandt. Again, forgiveness and love is all.
Kmiller: you do yourself a great injustice. I think your taste, and insight into these artists, is quite sophisticated. Again, different tastes abound out there. You are so right about Pollock: there always is something new to see in his works. The same is true of Rothko (although I think some of his color sings more than others). It takes a lot (of knowledge, of open minds, of patience, etc.) to appreciate these artists; and I would say that sophistication is what you have.
A simple question, a longer answer. Okay, this is what I've absorbed: classical can be defined on various levels. First, High Classical Greek Art is that of the Parthenon, the work of Phidias, such at the Three Goddesses below. Note how the drapery flows with great beauty, enlightening certain parts of their bodies while hiding others. They have a grace and dignity that is very classical; their postures even suggest their ages as in the prime of life (although Time has lost their heads). 
Then there is Late Classical Art, when we get to the softer work of Polykleitos., on the left, whose work is not nearly as militant as (my favorite) the Riace Bronzes. These are the men I want battling on my side. 
An even wider definition of classical art would include Roman works as well, although many of them are derivative of Greek work. Where the Romans excelled (in addition to architectural developments like domes etc.) is in portraiture. Marcus Aurelius is a fine example of that.
In the Renaissance, there is a revival of classical interest. So, in an even wider definition, Renaissance can be included as classical art. There is more inner intensity with Michelangelo than with the more distant Greek works. His David is a great example of this.
Then there is the Baroque. There are three styles in the Baroque: the naturalism of Caravaggio, the dynamic illusionistic style of Rubens, and then the classicizing style of Poussin (who initiated the French Academy of Art and all the rules from which the Impressionists later broke away).
Notice how down-to-earth Caravaggio is (complete with horse’s rearend, bare feet and all…..how the church loved these images! Not!). See how pompous and busy Rubens is: here the fiancé of the King of France, Marie de Medici, is arriving, and she has the grand gods and nymphs greeting her (but her husband is at a chateau with his mistress…nice, eh?) Finally, see how Poussin is reviving classical simplicity, form and balance. Here the shepherds are examining a sarcophagus in the middle of Arcadia. Anything with classical garb (i.e. togas) is usually classical to a degree. Also, they usually have strong outlines and perfected detail. They are not interested in the sweeping brushstrokes and color that we get with Rubens.
In the early nineteenth century, we have a revival of classical art again in the work of David and Ingres, often called Neoclassical Art. They were rivals of the Romantics, who followed the sweeping brushstrokes, emotion and color of Rubens. Interestingly enough, the classicists were called Poussinistes, and the Romantics were called Rubenistes. (Now you’ve just added some big vocabulary words to your repertoire.)
Both of these works are called Odalisques, or ladies of a Middle-Eastern harem. I hope you can guess which is by Ingres, the neoclassicist, and which by Delacroix, the romantic. Can you see different stages of a story in these works? (This is usually when I probably bring too much sex into the classroom……but, sex is an inspiration for art, as well as music, movies, is it not?)
I usually stop defining classical at this point, because once Modernism begins (probably with the Impressionists), issues change. It is not only the amount of detail in a work, but the references to the values of ancient Greeks and Romans: valor, balance, courage, morality, etc. We just don’t see a great deal of that nowadays. So, off hand, I would not add Rockwell or comics to the classical tradition. I would call them realists, yes. But that is different from classicism (as the discussion of Pre-Raphaelites would show). The Pre-Raphaelites were dealing with a kind of realism, or as someone aptly noted, super-realism. But they were not dealing with classical themes at all. Their work is almost more illustrative instead, often of the Bible or other historical themes. Just because they do a few images of ancient Greece doesn’t make them classical. Their work is also too busy to be classical.
Now to throw in a completely different kind of idea: some would call Minimalism a classical kind of art. This is not because it relates to the content, or even the form, of typical classical art. But they call it classical because it has a dignified, "classical" simplicity and power. Maya Lin’s Vietnam Memorial might be called classical.
LOL! You have some strong feelings about Rossetti, don't you? ;-) The truth is, however, that the pre-Raphaelite paintings in the Delaware Art Museum have been in Delaware since the 1800s, not long after they were actually painted. Samuel Bancroft, whose family owned a textile mill near Wilmington, DE (and not much more than a stone's throw from where the museum is now), bought the paintings during his trips to England, and they were donated to the museum in 1935. I personally like many of the pre-Raphaelites, particularly the ones that had Christian (Anglo-Catholic, even just plain Catholic) themes. The Holman Hunt painting of the Holy Innocents is pretty weird, and isn't among my favorites. However, there are others that I find to be outstanding. For example:
James Collinson - The Renunciation of Queen (St.) Elizabeth of Hungary
James Collinson - The Holy Family
Dante Gabriel Rossetti - The Girlhood of the Virgin Mary
Sir Edward Burnes-Jones - The Morning of the Resurrection
There are also non-religious paintings by the pre-Raphaelites and related artists that I find appealing. Such as:
Arthur Hughes - Ophelia (1865)
John William Waterhouse - The Tempest (Some consider Waterhouse to be influenced by the pre-Raphaelites, while others think otherwise.)
Dante Gabriel Rossetti - Lady Lilith
As for the French and Watteau in particular, I find them in general sort of niminy-piminy (but that may just be because he's French, and I'm visiting the sins of his putative descendants on his head.)
If we're going to backtrack into the 18th c., Hogarth is more my speed, especially his immensely perceptive portraits.
But ya gotta admit that's a rotten painting (Rossetti abandoned it when he realized he had botched the composition and perspective.)
I enjoy looking at the Pre-Raphaelites, though I do get frustrated with Rossetti -
It's ok. :-) As you may or may not know, I grew up in Delaware, and the Art Museum is practically in the neighborhood I grew up in.
I did not know you were a Delawarean. It's a great museum.
Well, currently, I live in northern Virginia, but I live 23 out of 25 years of my life in Delaware, so go figure. :-)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply on classicism.
I like the Caravaggio alot, it has an almost 19th century look to it. Rubens' drawings knock me out more than his paintings do. I don't know if I think his stuff is pompous, though, too full of movement maybe. Agreed that all the flourishes are.
The Ingres odalisk has always looked out of proportion to me, although I believe only her torso is too long. I much prefer the Delacroix, or even that Manet Olympia one that you guys had up a while ago.
I had put Rockwell and the comic artists in the classical category because they continue to follow, or at least be aware the old Greek canons of proportion and at least their own interpretations of what comprises beauty. They draw well, IOW. But I guess if you don't consider realists to be in the classical tradition, you would not include folks like Thomas Eakins or Pascal Dagnan-Bouveret?
Now there is a clear sign of someone who is no longer a leftist!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.