Art Appreciation/Education series II class #4: Art of the Baroque

1/23/06 | republicanprofessor

[Republicanprofessor]

So it is your turn for discussion now. Which pieces do you like best, and why? What have I omitted that you would like to add? Can you tell which ones I like least?

[Republicanprofessor]

Art Appreciation/Education ping list.

It's been a while since I had a chance to do another "lecture" on art history. So here goes.

Let me know if you want on or off this ping list.

[conservativebabe]

I find Rembrandts works very pleasing. I love his use of color and light. His works have a softness about them that is very calming and sedate to me.

There seems so much passion in the subjects also.

[Fierce Allegiance]

If it's not baroque, don't fix it!

[End Times Sentinel]

Note:  I'm not an art appreciater, but at least I'm not stupid enough to say "That looks like crap" or "I could do that".  I just don't "get" most art.

Art tends to break into three groups for me:

1.  Stuff I just don't understand.  Modern Art, Mondrian, Picasso, stuff like that.  I don't know what I'm supposed to look at, or experience.  I get nothin' (but at least I know I couldn't do that).

2.  Stuff where I do understand and have endless questions I don't have any way of getting an answer to - "That's interesting.  I wonder if the shark ate that lady, and why was she in the water anyway."  "What happend to that kid?  Were they poor, or did everyone live like that?  What season was it?  How many hours did they work?  Why wasn't the kid in school?  Did they even have a school?  Could he read?"

3.  Rubens, Renoir, guys who painted a significant amount of female nudes.  Those I like 'cause I think the female body is beautiful, but somehow, maybe more is supposed to be going on there.

That's why I sort of like Dali, Man Ray, Duchamp, those guys.  At least when I see a painting of a spoon or a bottle rack, I know what I'm looking at.

JRBC, what are your thoughts (and anyone else who doesn't feel the need to point out that I don't know anything about art.  I already know that.)

Owl_Eagle

(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,

 it was probably sarcasm)

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

I am not big into art. I cannot draw anything more elaborate than stick people. I can look at a painting and comment if I like it or not, but that is about as far as it goes.

[najida]

First off, I love all things Baroque. From the music, to the architecture to the jewelry making of the period. The detail, the lush colors, the gilding and pomp all appeal to me.

And both Rubens Leucippus and Judgment of Paris are favorites of mine. For many reasons, but mostly, because the women look like normal women. Bodies that are mocked now-a-days were considered goddesses then (I was so born in the wrong era).

I've become a fan of Vemeer in the last few years. I guess a light went on in my head (no pun intended) about how precious light was in a pre-electrical era. With long, cloudy winters, and windows kept shut to ward off drafts, art that seemed to shine from within appeared to be magical.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Some of what is going on is that these artists often are drawing from myth, legend and story you may not be familiar with..plus for religious figures in particular, there is an old tradition of certain figures being associated with certain symbols, like a fuller's club for St. James the lesser, musical instruments, especially the organ, with St. Cecelia, eyes with St. Lucy, and so on.

If you aren't getting some of it, it's probably because you need someone to give you not just an interesting picture, but the background to the subject to get the most out of it.

Those are good questions you ask. Sometimes, the background will give the answers, and sometimes, you are just supposed to wonder about it and come to your own conclusions, I believe.

I like Rembrandt and Vermeer a lot. Rembrandt runs from highly dramatic pieces like Nightwatch to a lot of really pleasant still lives, and lots and lots of portraits. Some of his best work though, revolves around his religious scenes, imho. Vermeer is beautiful, pleasant, skillful and relaxing to look at.

Rubens does do delightful, intimate pictures, but he does so many of the big pictures that you can study for hours they're so rich with detail and you often need to know the type of symbolism or background story behind it to get it all.

[x]

Nice lecture, but why are the Versailles gardens so rigid and constrained? Why aren't they more exhuberant and ... well "baroque"?

[Millee]

Could you add me to your list please? Very interesting.

[x]

I do see the answer now -- the different styles of the Baroque -- but it does make things a little confusing. The lines between Baroque and neoclassicism or rococco don't seem to be too strict.

[Republicanprofessor]

Actually, your friend JRBC answered a great deal of your points, especially re your point 2. If you have an appreciation for Duchamp and Man Ray, I'd say that you know a great deal about art. (But in art, as in everything, there is always more to know, for me and for all. Just ask American Mother.)

But re your point 1, knowledge of modern art, you might be interested in the previous "classes" I've done. These are all clickable on my home page.

class #10: Postmodernism http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1473061/posts?page=17

class #9: Pop and Minimal Art http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1470726/posts?page=2

class 8: Pollock and Abstract Expressionism: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1468241/posts

class 7: American Modernism: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1440373/posts

class 6: Surrealism: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1427099/posts

class 5: Cubism: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1427099/posts

class 4: Expressionism: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1424087/posts

class 3: Cezanne and van Gogh; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1419876/posts

class 2: Impressionism and Post-Impressionism; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1414727/posts

class 1: Realism: Manet and Homer; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1410117/posts

A new series of art history "lectures" designed chronologically from Egyptian art onward:

Art Appreciation/Education series II class #1: Greco-Roman Realism and Early Christian Abstraction http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1491050/posts

Art Appreciation/Education Series II class #2: Romanesque and Gothic Art and Architecture http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1498966/posts

Art Appreciation/Education series II class #3: Art of the Renaissance http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1528015/posts

I have also begun a series on Visits to NYC and the art seen there:

Art Appreciation/Education: Visit to NYC I: Robert Smithson and James Turrell: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1507874/posts

Blue Moon by John Haber: A review of Oscar Bluemner's retrospective at the Whitney (I wanted to write about Bluemner's work as my Visit to NY II, but I decided to post Haber's great article instead.) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1507684/posts

Art Appreciation/Education: Visit to NY III: Elizabeth Murray: Return to Color and Energy http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1512127/posts

One other essay I wrote on Christo and his orange gates in NYC: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1348194/posts

You don't have to read them all! But maybe some will peak your interest. (I thought Millee might also be interested, just in case. Millee is now on the ping list.)

(I just hate to repeat myself from thread to thread, so that's why I list what I've already written.)

[End Times Sentinel]

Thank you both for your responses.

Sometimes, the background will give the answers, and sometimes, you are just supposed to wonder about it and come to your own conclusions, I believe.

Do either of you (or anyone else) know of a book, or probably a series of books that have not only the pictures, but an explanation of what's going on in them?  I have several art books, but the texts always seem to give insight into what was going on in the artist's development rather than what's in the picture.

Owl_Eagle

(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,

 it was probably sarcasm)

[Republicanprofessor]

Nice lecture, but why are the Versailles gardens so rigid and constrained? Why aren't they more exhuberant and ... well "baroque"?

Well, Louis XIV wanted control and not exuberance (at least on the exterior of his palace). That's why it is the third style of the Baroque (and one with which we are perhaps the least familiar). England also had stiff, classical Baroque forms, (but they did enjoy a looser, "English" garden that was actually modeled after gardens in the Far East.)

The last image shows the "English" gardens of Stourhead in England.

Thus St. Paul's in London, by Sir Christopher Wren, has much that is solid and classical. Only the twisting, curved towers have the exuberance true of the Italian dynamic illusionistic style seen in Borromini's Church of St. Agnese. (I like the way the facade--the front part of the second church--actually curves inward. Very unusual.)

Does that answer your question, in a roundabout way? The French under Louis XIV wanted a classical, controlling style, from facades to gardens.

[Republicanprofessor]

Nice insights about Vermeer and light. Thanks.

[Republicanprofessor]

Do either of you (or anyone else) know of a book, or probably a series of books that have not only the pictures, but an explanation of what's going on in them?

Actually, I know a very good book and meant to recommend it in the previous post. It is by Patrick de Rynck and is called How to read a painting: Lessons from the Old Masters. There are many details in there and explanations of symbolism, odd myths, etc. Some of the Dutch paintings are a bit obscure, but I expect amny of our American paintings would seem obscure to a Dutch author.

I have some great ideas on how to write a similar book for abstract art, but I'm still searching for the right publisher.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

I grew up reading the Time-Life series of books on famous authors, which in my memory from way back, seemed to explain a lot.

You might want to go to a college bookstore and see what books they are using for their art appreciation course as well.

I do recommend, if you don't have them yet, a copy of Bulfinch's Mythology, including the Age of Fable, because that's a great place to look up a lot of the background stories from myth and legend.

I'm an art and literary junkie, but not up to date on who's good for art reference. But literary reference, come and ask!

[najida]

Bulfinch's Mythology was one of my favorite books growing up. It and Grimm's Fairy Tales :)

[Knitting A Conundrum]

He does a neat retelling of the Arthurian and the Roland stories as well as the greek myths. His idea was to create a source where people who may not have had a chance to read all these legendary works what all the hubbub was about. Very useful reference when we might not even heard of some of this stuff...like the stories about Roland have just about died into obscurity, although the King Arthur stuff still lives - but they are worth knowing!

[Rutles4Ever]

Owl - I'm so glad you posted here. Your questions are not unusual for the average art enthusiast, but given my numerous years as a friend of the Chicago Art Institute, I think I can help you come to a better understanding of what's going on here.

In this first picture, some kid is feeling up a naked lady.

In this picture, some guy is on his back, waiting for his horse to consummate the marriage.

Islam is born.

I hope this helps in your quest for art appreciation.