"Bird in Space" by Constantin Brancusi

When I first saw this piece I thought it was a flame, then, I realized from the title that it is a bird. While "Bird in Space" does have a vague pointed beak at its top, and a slight indent at the bottom section to indicate some sort of feet, the piece does not actually look like a bird. Instead, "Bird in Space" represents the idea of flight, and, in my opinion, freedom. Motion is evident in the sculpture because it invites the eye to soar upward along the lines of the sculpture. The highly polished, reflective bronze of the bird, or, more accurately, the flight, creates movement on its surface because light constantly is bouncing off of it and moving as the viewer moves. The highly polished surfaces of "Bird in Space", while common in Brancusi's work, is rarely seen with other sculptors. Brancusi frequently employs a hierarchy of material in his work. He often begins with wood and works his way up to bronze. A hierarchy of material is evident in this piece as well. The bases of Brancusi's work, if included, are always part of the piece itself. Brancusi strove to create simple forms. Brancusi was a revolutionary sculptor. He made the transition from realism to abstraction in sculpture. Part of his transition process was using oblong shapes to represent organic forms. Simplicity allowed Brancusi to capture the essence of flight in "Bird in Space". He captures the essence of being a bird. I think of freedom when I see this piece, not only because birds traditionally represent freedom, but also because I originally thought it was a flame. Flames are free. Flames create fires that can become powerful and both destroy and renew life. When people try to contain a large fire, they often fail. The motion of the soaring figure in Brancusi's "Bird in Space" creates the illusion of a flame, or the illusion of flight. It truly inspires awe and has become a symbol of modern art.
P.S. This sculpture was so unusual for the time it was created (1928), that when it was brought to the United States for a show at the Modern Museum of Art in New York, customs agents believed it was a hunk of metal to be used for some sort of industrial purpose, and, therefore, tried to tax it (artwork is not taxable). Apparently, the customs officials theorized that it was some sort of propeller. Brancusi had to go to court to defend his artwork.

"The Death of Sardanapalus" by Eugène Delacroix

Delacroix was a Romanticist. Romanticism is essentially the opposite of Neoclassicism, which I discussed with "Automedon with the Horses of Achilles". While Neoclassicism was all about order and reason, Romanticism was all about emotion. These styles were popular at the same time, so characteristics of both can be found in many works. This piece by Delacroix tends to be more Romantic. One of the characteristics of Romanticism is a touch of the exotic, which essentially means there is something in the painting that is not European. This piece is about an Assyrian ruler, Sardanapalus, so the story of the painting itself is exotic. In the story, Sardanapalus faces a defeat in battle and, rather than go through with an embarrassing defeat, he orders all of his possessions to be burned, including even his slaves and himself. The painting depicts the moments that follow that order; the guards are killing the prostitutes and slaves, destroying Sardanapalus’ belongings while Sardanapalus lounges on his bed. Violence is also a reoccurring theme in Romantic work, and this piece has its fair share of it. Emotion is central to Romantic work. Delacroix expresses emotion through the servants screaming out in pain as well as the quick brushwork. Delacroix painted the piece with emotion, so the brushwork is evident. The audience can empathize with the women, feeling their panic. One reason for this is that one woman is splayed across the bed. Rich colors are a component of Romanticism as well. This piece has strong reds which allude to the blood that was spilled on this day. Overall, “The Death of Sardanapalus” is a masterpiece of Romantic painting. Romanticism led to impressionism because of its looser brushwork and emphasis on emotion. In this way, Romanticism helped stimulate the first artists to branch off from tradition. I love seeing the progression from early art to Modern art, and Romanticism is an important step on that journey.

"The Two Fridas" by Frida Kahlo

In my Art History Class we just finished watching the movie "Frida" by director Julie Taymor, so I thought it was a good time to talk about the artist Frida Kahlo. Frida Kahlo is a prominant surrealist painter from Mexico. She is one of the most famous painters from Mexico, and she married another very famous artist from Mexico, Diego Rivera. They had a rocky relationship because Rivera was very promiscuous. Kahlo painted "The Two Fridas" soon after divorcing Rivera. It is considered to be a representation of the pain she felt for losing her husband. The Frida on the left depicts the Frida rejected by her husband. Her chest is ripped open, the inner workings of her heart exposed. This Frida also represents Frida's European heritage (her father was a German Jew). Before her marriage to Rivera she would wear the same fashions as the Europeans at the time. Rivera encouraged her to wear more traditional Mexican clothing. Kahlo chose to dress the Frida who was rejected by Rivera with clothing that Rivera encouraged her to change.The Frida on the right displays the Mexican heritage of Frida (her mother was Mexican) as well as the side of Frida that Rivera still loves. This Frida still has an exposed heart, but the inner workings of the heart are not displayed, showing that her heart is not broken. This Frida wears traditional Mexican clothing, like the clothing Rivera encouraged her to wear. She holds a portrait of Rivera. The vein that wraps around both of the Fridas begins with the portrait, so Rivera is the source of blood that runs through her heart, meaning that Rivera gives her life. The right Frida still loves Rivera, and wishes for him to come back to her. The Frida on the left cuts off the blood supply, breaking the bond with Rivera. The Fridas clasp hands and have one vein moving through both of their hearts increasing the connection between them. Kahlo clearly felt split about her separation with Rivera because while she still loved him, he was unfaithful. There are many ways to interpret this painting, and I think multiple interpretations is one of the marks of a great piece of artwork. Kahlo had a very painful life and she was able to express all the pain she felt through painting. It was her coping mechanism. This movie truly opened my eyes to the work of Frida Kahlo and I look forward to learning more about her in the future.
P.S. Rivera and Kahlo did get remarried and remained married until Kahlo's death.

Comparing Davids- "David" by Gian Lorenzo Bernini and "David" by Michelangelo

Both sculptures depict the biblical hero, David. Each work represents the time in which it was created. Bernini was a Baroque artist, and, as such, he created a dramatic David. Michelangelo was a Renaissance artist, and, so, his David is more calm. Bernini's David is in the midst of battle and about to kill Goliath, while Michelangelo's David is contemplative, ready for battle but not in the battle yet. Bernini's David has pursed lips, he is concentrating on the task at hand. Michelangelo's David has a tense face and alert eyes, he confident in his ability to fight. Bernini's David is in a dynamic pose, he stretches across space, getting the viewer involved in the events. Michelangelo's David is caught in a quiet moment, his twisted body suggests subtle movement. Michelangelo's David is reminiscent of High Classical Ancient Greek sculpture because he is nude, rendered in ideal proportions, and is standing in controposto (a position wherein the figure's weight rests on one foot), while Bernini's David is similar to Hellenistic Greek sculpture because of its dynamic pose and more expressive facial features. Both of the David's have ideal muscle tone, although Michelangelo's David is more muscular. An interesting detail in Bernini's David is that Bernini carved David's rope from the marble without keeping a piece of marble for support. Michelangelo, on the other hand, has a piece of support attached to his rope. This suggests that Bernini was more confident in his abilities than was Michelangelo. Most people view Michelangelo as the greatest sculptor in history, but even the great Michelangelo had occasional doubts about his abilities. Bernini is a famous Baroque artist, but not nearly as famous as Michelangelo. Michelangelo is a household name while Bernini is mostly known to those who study art. It is a shame that Bernini's art has become lost to the common person because he deserves recognition for his greatness. Both of these artists' Davids are incredible masterpieces, and, they are so different from one another that one cannot truly say one is better than the other.

"Automedon with the Horses of Achilles" by Henri Regnault

I honestly do not know very much about this painting specifically. I saw it when I went to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, and I was fascinated enough to take a picture of it. It is a very powerful painting. It has a very large canvas, over ten feet tall by ten feet wide. Like I said, I do not know very much about this painting, but my guess is it is Neoclassical. It was created when the Neoclassic style was popular. The style features a variety of characteristics, many of which are in this painting. One characteristic is vertical and horizontal lines. The man, Automedon, reaches his arm up, and the line beginning with his left hand is followed all the way through to his left foot, creating a very strong vertical line. One of the horse's legs echoes the leg of Automedon. The leg of the other horse (the rearing horse) is almost parallel to the ground, creating a horizontal line. Another characteristic of Neoclassical paintings is a subject from Roman or Greek mythology or history. The subject matter of this piece is a Greek myth from Homer's Iliad. Automedon is the charioteer for Achilles. The painting shows Automedon attempting to restrain the divine horses Xanthos (the darker brown horse) and Balios (the chestnut horse). The two horses can see the future and know their master will die in battle, so they are upset because they do not want to go to battle. The power of the horses is evident. They have bulging muscles that could not possibly belong to a normal horse. Neoclassical also stresses drawing with lines, instead of color, so this means that the figures have strong lines defining them. This is evident in this piece. There is not any brushwork in Neoclassical works and this is no exception. While I do not know for sure if this piece is Neoclassical, I think it is a pretty good guess considering it contains many Neoclassical characteristics. I love this piece. It is truly powerful, especially when you are standing right in front of it. It takes my breath away. To fully experience this piece, one must stand in front of the real thing. It's power is unrelenting.

"Composition with yellow, red, and blue" by Piet Mondrian

Mondrian is the most famous De Stijl artist. De Stijl is a Dutch art movement of the early 1900's. De Stijl translates to "The Style", and the artists connected with the movement concentrated on composition. One of their goals was to eliminate the touch of the artist and eliminate emotion, so very little brushwork is evident. The paintings seem almost machine created. The artists created nonobjective art, so it is not meant to represent anything, it is purely about composition. Mondrian, like many De Stijl artists used only primary colors plus black and white because they are the only pure colors. Mondrian also used only rectangles. Mondrian's compositions are asymmetrically balanced. Often he will balance a large colored rectangle with a couple of small colored rectangles. These paintings are very aesthetically pleasing, as they should be considering their only purpose is composition. Mondrian's compositions are so pleasing that the fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent used the design of one of Mondrian's paintings to create dresses in 1965 even calling them the "Mondrian Collection". De Stijl art is very versatile because it is so simple. I even am using it as inspiration for a design project for yearbook. I wanted to have a sleek, clean, modern design for a practice yearbook cover design, and I turned to Mondrian. Some of the De Stijl artists were architects, creating whole houses with the same principles which only furthers the point of De Stijl's versatility. In De Stijl houses, the entire house, including the furniture, is executed only in primary colors plus black and white. I think these compositions are calming, and I love immersing myself in these pieces.

"The Lamentation" by Giotto

 This is a revolutionary painting. It doesn't look revolutionary, but it truly is for many different reasons. It was created just before the Renaissance. One of the reasons it is so important in art history is because Giotto made it so that the focus of the piece is off center, thus it is not symmetrical on each side. Before this, religious imagery consistently contained Jesus in the center with an equal number of whoever is accompanying him on either side whether it be angels, sheep, disciples, or anyone else. Now the focus is off center, and there is a different number of people on either side of him. Also, there is a large diagonal created from the landscape in the background, which creates more drama and causes your eye to move towards Jesus. The people and the angels are shown with emotion, they are distressed at the death of Jesus. One of the final reasons is that the people in the yellow and green shrouds are facing away from the viewer. This creates an effect of the viewer being part of the painting, and part of the events taking place. I love this painting for all of these reasons. It excites me to think about how innovative this painting by Giotto truly was. It helped instigate the Renaissance, making it a truly important piece. It is located in the Arena Chapel in Padua, Italy. Giotto was commissioned to complete the entire chapel, which includes scenes from the life of Jesus. I would love to be able to go to Italy and see The Lamentation for myself one day.

"Horse" by Raymond Duchamp

 When I went to The Art Institute for the first time, I saw this piece and immediately knew it was a horse. To me it was obvious, but I grew to learn that for most people it is not particularly obvious. It takes other people longer to see the distinguishing characteristics of the mane, the muzzle, and the hoof. Once you can see those main parts, the horse begins to take shape, and it is easier to understand. This sculpture is from the Futurist art movement. Futurism first appeared during 1909, and is mainly an Italian movement, though Duchamp is French. It stems from Cubism. Its main purpose was to praise modern technologies and look toward the optimistic future. Futurists emphasize the machine, and the power it holds. Horses are common imagery in Futurist work because horses represent power and the new human ability to harness power. In Horse, the horse has a very mechanical body. This body connects horsepower to mechanical power. The horse propels forward as a nod to the the Futurists obsession with the future. This sculpture is all about showing movement in space. Duchamp spoke of his work, "The power of the machine imposes itself upon us and we can scarcely conceive living bodies without it." Duchamp is saying that it is hard to imagine living things without machine like qualities, so it emphasizes why he made the horse look machine like. I have recently become more interested in Futurism. I have always loved this sculpture and never knew, until recently, the art movement associated with it. I have been looking at other Futurist works, and I am fascinated by all of them.
As a side note, Raymond Duchamp is the brother of the more well known artist, Marcel Duchamp (who never liked to be associated with an art movement).

"Paris Street, Rainy Day" by Gustave Caillebotte

 This is my favorite painting, so it is fitting for it to be the subject of my first post. I live close to the Art Institute of Chicago, and every time I go I have to see this painting. Part of the reason I love it is because the recent discoveries made by the Art Institute regarding this work. The restorers at the Art Institute recently discovered that before it came to the Art Institute, somebody painted over the sky, so it looked more gray. Other changes occurred as well. the Art Institute restored it back to the lighter, more yellow sky that Caillebotte intended. The sky is meant to be more yellow because the painting depicts the moment that the rain stops and the sun begins to peak through the clouds. I think it is a very interesting moment that Caillebotte chose to depict. A great moment in which to play with light. In addition to the recent restoration effort, I love the composition. I love how the street lamp divides the painting into two sections. It fascinates me that everyone is in their own bubble, how the figures are isolated in the midst of a big city. I love everything about this painting, from its glistening street, to its yellowing sky, I could stare at this painting all day.