Ancient Greek Sculptures
Ancient Greek sculpture can be classified into the categories: • The Geometric Period ca. 900-700 B.C.E. • Orientalizing Period ca. 725-600 B.C.E. • Archaic Period ca. 625-480 B.C.E After the Greeks defeated the Persians 480-479 B.C.E. the art of Greek sculpture entered new periods of: • Early Classical Period ca. 480-450 B.C.E. • High Classical Period ca. 450-400 B.C.E. • Late Classical Period ca. 400-330 B.C.E. • Hellenistic Period ca. 330-31 B.C.E Subjects that Greek sculptures often portrayed were of battles, mythology and rulers of ancient Greece. Sculptures were created through the reductive process. Sculptures were made entirely out of bronze or marble. To create statues out of marble, the reductive process is used, starting with a large piece of marble and carefully cutting away areas to create the shape and structure of the figures desired for the artwork.
Statue of a kouros (youth), c. 590–580 B.C.; Archaic marble The figure of a male youth appears nude and is free-standing. There is negative space between his legs and arms suggesting his movement, he looks as if he is walking forward, one foot stepping forward away from the other. However, the body looks rigid and stiff despite the notion of walking. The way his shoulders are stiff and hands clenched by his side. You can notice that there is marble in the gap between the hands and hips, supporting the structure from breaking. There is an emphasis on the vertical positioning of the figure and he is almost completely symmetrical which makes his appearance less realistic and less moveable. This lack of projections are due to the low tensile strength of the marble. Thus the figure is in a closed composition.
The Archaic Period
The figure is overall smoothly carved, with polished surfaces. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of detail in the body or face. Only the hair appears to have more detail, the hardness of the marble allows this detail to be carved. This sculpture has an obvious fixed viewpoint, we can see that the figure is supposed to be viewed from the front of the body, as if he is stepping toward us. These male figures called kouros which means “youth” were always created nude. There are similarities between these Greek sculptures and Egyptian figurative sculptures, however they differ entirely in meaning.
Memtuemhet Egypt, Dynasty XXVI, 650 BC
Here you can see that the Egyptian sculpture is similar where it is carved from the stone but not all of the stone is removed, notice how the figure appears “trapped” in the stone, there isn’t any empty space, unlike the Kourois figure. It makes the Greek statues appear free from the stone, much more alive and the impression of movement. The Greek’s wanted to suggest the idea of motion whilst the Egyptians did not. Their sculptures were often depictions of Gods and the idea of keeping the stone around them held them in place as if to express that the Gods were unmoveable, because they had the stone around them to support the limbs, the structure would be unbreakable. The Egyptian figures were also more idealised for them being Gods whilst the Greek figures appear less idealised, depiction of ordinary people. This is because in Athens they believed in Democracy and every human having a vote and a voice so their sculptures depicted people rather than rulers.
This sculpture is of a man names Kroisos who died a hero’s death in battle. This figure marked his grave. Here we can see the “archaic smile” and also the similar Egyptian stance as the previous sculpture but the naturalism of the body is different and exceeds any figurative sculpture that came before it. On this sculpture we can see that the head is not too big for his its body, the cheeks are fuller, the abdomen well developed and more natural. The muscles appear rounder and larger and the hair looks less stiff, falling more realistically. The overall figure seems much smoother, the detail more noticeable thus making the figure look more relaxed and not rigid at all, even in this closed composition. In this sculpture we can see that paint has been applied, the flesh has been left the natrual colour of the stone whilst the hair, lips and eyes are noticeably painted in encaustic.
The Classical Period This sculpture of another standing nude young male stands at a fixed viewpoint staring out at the viewer much like the previous Kourois figures. However, there is a new confidence in his stance, he seems more relaxed, resting his weight on one leg in a pose called contrapposto. There is a lot of detail around the muscles and especially the hair, we get the impression that the artist paid close attention and time to this sculpture, to capture this lifelikeness. There is a smooth flow to the marble, it appears even more skin-like with this figure, the eyes appear more apparent, cut and shaped more fully than previous sculptures, the facial features are perfected. The body here is very idealised, the perfection of the smooth marble skin, the fullness of the muscles and body structure, this is unlike sculptures from the Archaic period. It was actually the first statue from classical antiquity known to use contrapposto.
This sculpture is an example of late archaic or early classical Greek sculpture. Some call this the Severe style. The improved quality of the sculpture and the newly idealised form is due to the encouragement of the Greek’s defeating the Persians just before this period emerged. The naturalism we see in the sculptures of the classical period are seen as a result of the new found confidence and self-determination the Greek’s possessed because of their victory. Notice the smooth, beautiful volumes of the skin and muscles to portray the Greek ideal of the athletic male youth. However, the Persians invaded a second time and the destruction of sculptures like this one were the result, which is why the Kritios boy is missing his arms, calf and feet. But even with these missing limbs, the sculpture is still magnificent in structure. There is an obvious change in this sculpture compared to the previous kouros of the archaic period. There is improved muscular and skeletal understanding, the rib cage is naturally expanded as if in the act of breathing,. The “Archaic smile“ has been completely replaced by the accurate rendering of the lips and the austere expression that characterized the transitional Severe style. The symmetrical bodies of the kouros is not longer present, even the Kritios boy’s head is tilted, shifted slightly giving more life to him. This sculpture has believable movement, the notion of walking and breathing is depicted whilst the kouros stood rigid, unmoveable, forever.
http://www.metmuseum .org/toah/hd/haht/hd_h aht.htm
The Hellenistic Period At the time of the Hellenistic period, Greek cultural influence and power was at its peak in Europe, Africa and Asia, experiencing prosperity and progress in the arts, exploration, literature, theatre, architecture, music, mathematics, philosophy, and science. This period happened between the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC and the emergence of the Roman Empire as signified by the Battle of Actium in 31 BC and the subsequent conquest of Ptolemaic Egypt the following year. This period is said to have introduced Greek artistic styles to a array of new, exotic influences.
This sculpture is extremely more complex than any of the previous sculptures. Here we can see three male human figures in twisting forms, moving among each other, a snake ties them all together in this dramatic composition. It appears as if they are wrestling the snake, fighting it off – notice how the smaller males contort and push at the snake in attempt to free themselves from it’s looping body. The head of the snake is in a freeze-frame at the larger figure’s torso in the middle, ready to take a striking bite. Each figures face is full of pain, the boy to the right stares up at the middle figure in desperation. This sculpture has multiple viewpoints, everywhere you look there is movement and detail. The mood of this sculpture is intense, there’s a story-like drama here. There’s a definite emotion of fear and agony, you can tell the figures are scared and concentrated in their futile task.
This sculpture depicts the Greek myth of The story of Laocoon. Laocoon was a Trojan priest who told the people of Troy not to except a gift, a wooden horse, from the Greeks. He threw a spear into the horse to check if it was a ruse or not, but nothing was found. Athena then blinded him. As extra punishment, Poseidon sent two serpents to kill him and sons. The serpents killed both his sons but left Laocoon alive to suffer. The figures of this sculpture are near life-size and the group is a little over 2 metres in height, showing LaocoÜn and his sons, Antiphantes and Thymbraeus, being attacked by the sea serpents sent by Poseidon. The scale of this sculpture along with the dynamic open composition seems worlds away from the closed compositions of the Kouros and contrapposto-standing figures of the Archaic and Classical Period. The group depicted in this sculpture has been described as "the prototypical icon of human agony" in Western art, because it is unlike the agony often depicted in Christian art showing the Passion of Jesus and martyrs. The suffering shown in this sculpture has no redemptive power or reward, but is shown through the contorted expressions of the faces matched with their struggling bodies. Laocoon’s body is specifically notable, with every part of his body straining and twisting high above the rest of the sculpture.
This sculpture has a pyramidal composition, you can see how Laocoon’s head is at the top of the pyramid and how his body twists in shape, along with his sons, make this hyarchy, putting Laocoon at the top, the centre of the piece. This pyramidal composition in marble is stabilised provided by the broad base the group stands upon. The figures are nude and extremely idealised, they all appear muscular and athletic. You can also see the smoothness of the skin and realism of the curly hair, the muscles on display due to the stretching, movement of the bodies. This extreme muscular intensity shown as they struggle to free themselves, along with the pyramidal composition the characters appear in, gives a dramatic visual.
The artist of this piece has used various materials and techniques to accomplish such a dynamic, natural composition. A variety of textures can be seen here, notice the smoothness of the skin – the translucency of marble makes it appear as flesh, adding to the realism of the sculpture. The folds of drapery appear extremely realistic, the artist has achieved this sense of weight and movement in this piece. The falling effects of what appear to be heavy drapery adds physical stability to the sculpture. The use of undercutting when creating this sculpture creates definitions and dramatic intensity is produced through the shadowed areas where the snake entwines among the figures and the shapes in the bodies and folds of the drapes.
Here is a drawing of what the warriors would have looked like prior to their missing parts. The statues are commonly referred to as “Statue A” and “Statue B” and were originally cast using the lost-wax technique. There has been speculation that the two statues identify as Tydeus (Statue A) and Amphiaraus (Statue B), who were two warriors from Aeschylus' tragic play, Seven Against Thebes (about Polyneices after the fall of his father, King Oedipus), and may have been part of a monumental sculptural composition. This idea is supported by the fact that the statues have lead dowels installed in their feet, indicating the notion of a base they may have been mounted on.
The Severe or Early Classical style describes the trends in Greek sculpture between c. 490 and 450 B.C.E. Artistically this stylistic phase represents a transition from the rather austere and static Archaic style of the sixth century B.C.E. to the more idealized Classical style. The Severe style is marked by an increased interest in the use of bronze as a medium as well as an increase in the characterization of the sculpture, among other features. The sculptures are, again, increasingly idealised, as tends to be the norm as Greek art developed. The use of bronze sculpting creates a much different effect to marble, you no longer have the flesh-like appearance of the translucent marble skin, but the brown, shiny appearance of bronze. The bronze pieces are often a smooth impression, the light hitting the patina to create this shininess, and dramatic light and tone on the body, illuminating the figure.
These bronze sculptures were made using the lost wax casting process.
For this process, first the model has to be made out of wax.
The wax model is then divided into separate sections.
Each section is placed a clay bed.
A plaster mould is painted around the parts.
The sections from the mould are assembled after hardening.
Hot wax is poured in to create a thin layer inside the mould.
This is repeated until the wax is at its desired thickness.
The wax hardens inside the mould, and is removed. The sections are then joined back together to create the figure.
A mixture of sand and plaster fills the model which creates a solid core inside the model.
Wax rods are than attached, this is to form channels to carry the molten bronze and allow gasses to escape.
The rods are attached to a plastic funnel and pins are inserted into the model to hold the plaster in place.
A plaster mould is applied layer by layer around the entire structure.
The model is fired in a kilm. The heat melts the wax which flows out through the funnel. This leaves the wax areas empty ready for the bronze to be poured in.
Bronze is made from copper, tin, and small amounts of other metals. These are heated to about 1,000 degrees Celsius. The bronze is skimmed to remove impurities.
The mould is turned upside down and the bronze is poured through the funnel.
After the bronze has cooled the mould is broken open. The figure is now bronze. The pin holes are plugged, and the details of the figure are perfected. The patina is created using acid and wax.
The sculpture has been unidentified as either Zeus or Poseidon, viewers unsure of which, because of speculation around what the figure could have been holding in his left hand, raised above his head. Some argue that it’s a tribute to Poseidon, “God of the sea” because of the extension of the arms (six feet) and that it makes sense for that length to be taken up by a triton, a common attribute of Poseidon. However, others argue that the positioning of the clutched hand isn’t right for the thin staff of a triton but rather the largeness of a thunderbolt which Zeus, Poseidon’s brother, would possess, as “God of the sky” or “Thunder God”. Zeus was also the ruler of all Gods of Olympus. Other reasons historians believe this statue to be Zeus is because of it’s enormity, it appears like a powerful God, it’s patina is radiant and shining in bronze and perhaps the eyebrows, possibly the beard, and especially the thunderbolt would have been inlaid with silver. This sculpture was found in a shipwreck, underwater which kept it so long as the bronze does not rust underwater.
Medieval or International Gothic Art to mid 15 centuries is described as
th Artwork created during the late 14th Medieval or International Gothic art. The paintings of this era were often used to communicate Christian messages, and to also illustrate wealth and status as these paintings were often extremely expensive. These paintings were typically detailed, linear and consisted of a luminous colour palette. Artists also often used stylised figures among the intense colours and gold, this was due to most paintings being of Christian biblical figures. The figures in these paintings were also spatially illogical and appeared out of proportion to portray status and storyline – the importance of a figure was identified by scale, deeming perspective unimportant and non-existant.
This painting is an example of how medium was used during the International Gothic Period. This type of painting is called a Triptych because it is made up of three panels. Artwork at this time was mostly produced for the Church and were mostly large scale. This piece would have been a large altarpiece painting. However, there would also have been small devotional paintings too. These paintings would have contained a lot of symbolism, figures would be depicted with attributes and be presented as importance. Paintings of this era were mostly all painted in a medium called Tempera – made up from egg yolk and pigment.
Tempera is a permanent fast-drying medium which consists of pigment mixed with egg yolk, on canvas or sometimes wood, and plaster. To create tempera different types of eggs where needed, lighter yolks from urban hens were used for lighter skin tones whilst darker, richer yolks would have been collected from country hens. Artists used a number of different ways to obtain colours during the medieval period, one of the most hardest colours to obtain during this time was Ultramarine. It was difficult to obtain because of how expensive it was due to it having to be mined from caves in Afghanistan. During this time, however, the Church owned this colour, because it was reserved for paintings of the Virgin Mary. To create tempera paint, the rock of pigment is ground down to smaller particles and then mixed with the egg yolk to form a paint-like paste and then applied to the canvas.
The Wilton Diptych Full title: Richard II presented to the Virgin and Child by his Patron Saint John the Baptist and Saints Edward and Edmund about 1395-9
Inside view - This piece was a small scale devotional piece to King Richard II. Because with all the material combined in this small painting, it would have been extremely expensive.
On the outside we see King Richard the Second’s emblem; The White Hart. Here it is wearing the crown around its neck
This piece is presented as two panels hinged together, like a book, and exhibiting two inner paintings protected by the outside cover, which also depicts two illustrations. The size of this piece and the way it opens and closes suggests it was made to be portable and opened and used in aid when in prayer. At first glance at this first inside panel, we notice four figures in the foreground, the background behind them a bold gold block. Looking closely we can see that the background appears ground into with tools to create this lace-like pattern appearance. This piece is extremely decorative, with an abundance of gold used almost everywhere in the painting. Notice the gold embellishing the figures clothes and crowns. There has been close, intricate details applied in the whole painting but especially in each of the figures attributes. These attributes identify who the figures are, we identify King Richard II kneeling at the front, accompanied by St John the Baptist, St Edward the Confessor, and St Edmund the Martyr – each holding their attribute. We can identify King Richard II also by the immense detail in his clothing, notice the shapes of his emblem, a deer or stag, carefully done in gold.
Looking across the diptych, we are greeted by what has been described as a ‘crowded paradise’. In the middle stands the elegant figure of the Virgin Mary and surrounding her eleven angels, they’re bodies and wings taking up the whole space of the foreground and mid-ground. It is said that there are eleven angels because King Richard II was eleven when he became King. Mary holds the baby Jesus in her arms, holding his foot in one hand in the notion of where the nails will go during crucifixion. However Christ pulls away from her toward the King on the left panel. There’s this relationship, connection across the diptych, as if Christ is glancing over at Richard II. Christ also appears to be reaching to the banner that’s being held by one of the angels, who looks up at Him. At the top of the poll, the English flag and an orb containing an image of an island with a little castle, referring to England. The rest of the angels crowd around Mary, wearing Richard II’s emblem on their left breasts. The background of this piece is similar to the first panel, craved into with gold, along with the halos and blanket wrapped around Christ. When looking closely, you can see that Christ’s halo is carved into with a crown of thorns, symbolic of his future crucifixion. This is in contrast with the angels, who all wear flower crowns and the beautiful, delicate garden the figures stand upon. Also, notice how Mary’s proportions are larger than the angels, emphasising her religious importance.
These two panels react to one another despite their being in separate dimensions. This connection across the diptych between King Richard II and the Virgin Mary, and Jesus, and all the connections to England and Richard II’s attributes suggests this idea or message of King Richard getting his divine right to rule England. This piece emphasises the importance and authority of Richard II, at least in his own perspective. The fact that he’s positioned himself among Kings that represent a piety, a religious precedent, and also his relationship with not only the Virgin Mary but John the Baptist express this idea. King Richard II’s presence is felt among the entire piece, and also his wealth and importance. There’s a huge amount of Ultramarine used here and the entire structure is covered and carved into with gold leaf, it is extremely decorative and expensive, there’s an almost arrogance, this suggestion that King Richard II was of heavenly power and wealth.
The Northern Renaissance
Dead Christ by Hans Holbein the Younger, oil, 1521-22
The Northern Renaissance is used to describe the Renaissance when it took place in northern Europe. ‘Renaissance’ translates to ‘Rebirth’ as this era marked the rebirth of art, science, music, religion and self-awareness, and is also considered the bridge between the Middle Ages and modern history. During this time, artists used oil paints to replicate the world in their paintings. Oil paint has a realistic, naturalism to it when applied to surfaces, it appears smoother and blends well together, especially useful for replicating skin tones and creating three dimensional forms. People of the Renaissance believed that if the image looked realistic enough then it could be real or true. Often the work also involved symbolism.
In this painting we can see two figures and also a small dog. The two figures are depicted as a man and female, the man stretching out his arm to hers, holding her hand. They both have their other hand raised, the woman holding hers to her stomach, where she appears to be pregnant underneath her dress which falls upon the floor in heavy folds. The man wears a huge cape-like piece, an extravagant hat atop his head. They appear to be in a bedroom, a domestic space inside a house – you can see the window at the left of the painting, and a bed with huge red draping bolster. There’s a mirror right in the centre of the painting, in the background, and a chandelier above the figures on the ceiling. The man appears to be barefoot, his shoes discarded at the front left of the canvas in the foreground, as well as the small dog. The figures are in the mid-ground of the painting but this does not take the focus of them, we’re intrigued by the man’s stare out at the viewer and the woman’s stare at him. We wonder who they are and what they could possibly be doing.
This painting shows great use of chiaroscuro, exhibiting deep shadows, especially in the clothing. The artist has used tonal modelling on the figures bodies and faces to create three-dimensional forms. The perspective here also enhances the illusion of realistic forms. The light is subtle and diffused coming from the window on the left. This piece was painted using oil paint, this has a different effect to the previous use of tempera paint. Oil paint takes much longer to dry, whilst tempera is similar to modern acrylic paint, which dries quickly. The paint here has been applied in thin translucent glazes. Artists of this time could use oil paint to blend the colour and achieve slight changes in light and shade. The paint smooths and mixes much better than tempera and gives the artist control over the forms in the painting.
This painting exhibits a lot of different objects that are considered to have symbolism, it is unsure to what symbolism is correct but it seems that Van Dyke meant something by involving this many objects within the piece. The brush hanging from the bed frame could suggest St Martha Patron saint of housewives, perhaps suggesting the woman in the painting to be a housewife. Again we get the sense that this is very domestic scene.
The oranges on the windowsill could symbolise wealth because oranges were not easy to obtain in Belgium during this time as they had to be imported from England.
A blossoming tree can be seen outside the window, suggesting the time of year is Spring.
The detail in this painting is immense, looking closely at the mirror hanging on the wall in the middle of the room in background, we can see how Van Eyck has painted the small details of the reflection and extra figures are revealed standing at the door, in front of two figures in the foreground. Around the mirror there are also smaller images which depict Christ’s life.
Above the mirror there are words written on the wall, they apparently say “Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434” which translates to “Jan Van Eyck was here.” It gives a sort of ominous tone to the painting, read almost like a warning; a suggestion that he was witness to whatever is being portrayed here in the painting.
The brass chandelier has a single lit candle and notice the burnt out candle stub. The lit candle is above the man in the painting whilst the burnt out candle appears to be above the woman, suggesting his life being lived more than the woman’s.
Notice the two figures shoes on the floor, the shoes possibly belonging the man are muddy outdoor shoes (pattens) whilst what we believe are the woman’s shoes are indoor slippers. His shoes are closer to the door, indicating a life outside the home, whilst her shoes are next to the bed, suggesting a relation to the household.
The small dog indicated loyalty, and the notion of being faithful.
The portrait could possibly depict the likes of Giovanni di Arrigo Arnofini from Lucca, Italy who lived in Bruges with his wife, Giovanna Cenami. On the wall the semi legalistic style of text, similarly to modern graffiti, seems to suggest a contract or some sort, perhaps a marriage, (this is also suggested by the joining of their hands) is this painting a witnessing of their betrothal? It seems unlikely because in 1997 Art Historians found that Giovanni and Giovanna were actually married in 1447, 13 years later than the painting was created and 6 years after Van Eyck’s death. Giovanni di Arrigo Arnofini happened to have a cousin, Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini who also worked in Bruges. His wife, Costanza Trenta, died before 1433. So, it is possible this is a portrait of the living Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and a posthumous portrait of his wife Costanza. Symbolism in the painting supports this, for example, the lit candle above Giovanni’s figure and the burnt out candle above Costanza. Her belongings being very related to the home, indicating her inhabitants of the house, as if her memory is there, she resides there only, like a ghost anchored to the past. In fact, this painting is of Giovanni di Nicolao Arnofini and his wife, and is not intended as a record of their wedding. Also, unlike popular belief, Giovanna is not pregnant, but actually holding up the massive fabric of her dress. We can see that the couple are shown in a well-appointed home, suggesting their wealth. The clothing they wear really confirm their riches. The dress that Giovanna wears is made from http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/jan-van-eyck-the-arnolfini-portrait
The Renaissance in Florence, Italy ‘Renaissance’ means rebirth, and is the period between 1400 and 1600. The renaissance was mainly in Florence, Italy. . The people in Florence at this time held an interest in the rediscovery of classical learning and art. It was also the rebirth of Science Geometry, and Literature, which is why many painting of this time exhibit the use of one point perspective. This was because Florence was a wealthy republic, meaning they were free to create whatever they desired, this suited the rise in the power of merchant families as patrons. They developed a religion called ‘Humanism’ because it was acceptable to read non religious texts.
The Holy Trinity 1425 Masaccio Fresco-painting on wet plaster 667x317cm Santa Maria Novella In this painting we can see seven figures, including the skeleton at the bottom of the image. The figure in the centre appears to be Jesus, he is recognised by his famous stature on the cross. In the centre of the fresco we see the holy trinity, three part nature of God – The Father, The Holy Spirit (as represented by the white dove), and The Son (Christ on the cross). In this religious depiction we are witness to such an extraordinary rendering of the human body, it’s incredibly realistic, and so associated with the medieval perception of the body. Jesus, here, is being pulled, his body is tortured across the cross, and we area able to see the strain on the muscles and the really admire Masaccio for his insight to what the body would look like strung up on a cross. He has really achieved realistic imagery in this painting that one might even mistake it for an actual scene. The reason this piece looks so insanely realistic can actually be determined by the tonal modelling Masaccio has applied, the use of this specifically on the drapery on the figures. The three-dimensional illusion can also be credited to Masaccio’s understanding of perspective, especially in the architecture. This painting showcases proportional accuracy which creates lifelikeness and enhanced the emotional value.
Mary is seen on the left and she holds her hand out, whilst glancing out at the viewer. It appears as if she is presenting her son to us. She is mournful, as if saying to the audience, “Look what my son did for you.”
Opposite to Mary, we see St John the Baptist. This is common to paintings about Jesus, but this isn’t a narrative of the crucifixion but rather a devotional piece.
There are two figures kneeling on the outside, they appear to be outside of this sacred area which holds Jesus, looking in and witnessing as the viewer would. They are the patrons, the Lenzi family.
Below the steps where the patrons kneel, we can see what appears to be a tomb which has been painted opened for the viewer to see, exposing the skeleton of Adam.
The latin above the skeleton translates to “As I am now, so you shall be. As you are now, so once was I.” This is a memento mori and suggests that death is inevitable. To us this translates to “live life to its fullest” but in the 15th century the meaning may have been different, rather a reminder of death therefore, prepare now for your salvations so that you can have eternity in heaven. The way to this eternity in heaven is indicated above, with the portrait of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross, as Mary so ardently points out.
This piece shows excellent knowledge of perspective and proportional accuracy. Perspective was developed in Florence at this time (15th century) by the architects, Leon Baptista Alberti (1404-72) and Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446). Before this, artists considered gold and expensive colours to be the key to reaching heaven, now people believed that accurate perspective and realism brought them closer to heaven. Math became the language of heaven. Masaccio painted the figures in this painting life-size, and the eye level of the viewer is at the same height as the eye level from which the perspective is constructed. This is what creates such a realistic appearance to the painting, you can see here that the piece appears three-dimensional as if one could actually walk into the scene. Perspective and good tonal modelling is what allows this piece to appear that way.
The Golden Ratio The Golden Ratio is a special number found by dividing a line into two parts so that the longer part divided by the smaller part is also equal to the whole length divided by the longer part. This is often called Phi and was named in the 20th century after the 21st letter of the Greek alphabet. Similar to Pi, the digits go on infinitely. Phi is usually rounded off to 1.1618. This number has been found many times in nature and it has many names such as, The Golden Mean, The Golden Section, Divine Proportion. This is a Fibonacci spiral created by drawing arcs connecting the opposite corners of squares. Phi and Fibonacci sequences appear in nature, such as branching in trees, a sunflower etc.
Piero della Francesca The Baptism of Christ 1450 Tempera on wood 167 x 116 cm
This painting shows the moment St John the Baptist poured Holy Water on Christ’s head who we see standing in the River Jordan. This painting was originally the central panel for a triptych altarpiece. To the right are believers, and the left are angels painted in the Holy trinity colours (white, blue, and red). This painting has a strange mood, it seems peaceful but at the same time full of mystery and tension. This mood has been achieved by the composition based on horizontals and verticals. This painting uses the Golden ratio, Piero was also a mathematician. We can see it vertically down the tree on the left hand side, horizontally trough wings of the dove and in the clouds in the upper half. The circle represents Heaven, whilst the square represents Earth, and Christ is positioned between both. Piero suggests that Christs is the bridge between the two and perhaps is urging us of the importance of being baptised, as this is what links us to heaven.
The High Renaissance
Donatello. David c. 1430 Bronze, height: 158 cm This sculpture is of David from the Biblical story: David is sent by his father to help his brothers serving in Saul's army, and declares that he can defeat Goliath. Refusing the king's offer of the royal armour, he kills Goliath with his sling. This sculpture shows the nude, young male, figure of David. He appears unengaged with the viewer, his head bent down, and his eyes peering at the floor. The figure stands in contrapposto, one arm rested at his hip and the other stretched out holding a sword, in a confident, arrogant, and proud stance. In his other hand at his hip he appears to be holding stones for his slingshot. David stands completely nude, apart from a type of hat on his head, and sandals on his feet. He’s stood atop a giant helmet-wearing bearded man, the giant Goliath which David defeated. This sculpture is made from bronze, its high tensile strength makes the protruding arms and dynamic pose possible. This sculpture has a dark, sharp patina, allowing it to be shiny. This sculpture It stood on an ornamental pedestal in the centre of the newly built courtyard of the Medici Family. Michelangelo saw this sculpture whilst he was being trained by a family in Florence.
Michelangelo David 1504 Marble, Florence app. 5 metres tall Michelangelo’s ‘David’ stands as a Single figure sculpture. He appears nude and in a Classical Contrapposto pose. This sculpture is made from marble, which is what gives it it’s smooth texture of skin, in contrast with the rough appearance of the hair, and the overall flesh-like tone of the body. This specific sculpture was made from a large scale single block of marble from the Cararra region in Northern Italy. Other artists has tried to create a ‘David’ sculpture from this block of marble but all found it extremely impossible. Michelangelo would have used reductive process to create this sculpture. Before Michelangelo, no artists had created a large scale nude sculpture like this since the Romans. This sculpture, unlike the previous ‘David’ sculpture, portrays David just before the fight with Goliath. You can see this in his pose, and his expression on his face. His head is turned to the right, and his body appears as though it’s about to follow his head and turn completely to the right in order to face the giant. The sculpture is large scale, and you can notice that the proportions of the body are slightly inaccurate. For example, the arms are too long, the hands a lot larger than what they would be anatomically. This is because it was originally going to be placed on one of the tribunes high atop the roofline of the main Cathedral of Florence, which meant it needed to be seen from very far below.
Michelangelo exhibits extreme detail and structural understanding of the body with this sculpture. These details really emphasise the drama and narrative of David. You can see, when looking closely at the sculpture, the strain on the tendons, the bulging veins in hands, and the knotted muscles of the chest.
This is new iconography of sculptures. Prior to this, sculptures would depict celebrated figures in all their heroic idealism, but David is not shown here as an idealised athlete but a tense figure preparing for the fight, rather than after it.
The Rococo Period
Thomas Gainsborough: ‘Mr and Mrs Robert Andrews’, 1750. Oil on canvas, 70 x 119 cm
The Rococo was a French style, which was brought to England by foreign artists like Hubert-François Gravelot. The Rococo Period lasted from 1730 – 1780. In this painting Gainsborough paints in a style that relates to the more playful paintings of French Rococo commissions.
This painting is a double portrait, similar to that of the “The Arnolfini portrait” by Van Eyck, of a couple in a landscape. The landscape is mostly fields, it appears to be a farm. The couple in the painting are Mr and Mrs Robert Andrews, as told by the title. Both figures are positioned to the left of the horizontal landscape. This is unlike other portrait landscape paintings, where the figures would usually be depicted in the middle of the scene. In this painting Mrs Andrews is sitting on a bench, a large oak tree behind her and Mr Andrews stands next to her to the left of the painting, he wears his hunting uniform, and his dog stands obediently at his legs.
Fragonard ‘The Swing’ 1767 Not only is the style and colouring specific to Rococo style, Mrs Andrew’s attire is especially reminiscent of another Rococo painting: JeanHonoré Fragonard’s ‘The Swing.’ Her dress is a light blue, possessing the same style of pastel colours and delicate lace like the woman’s dress in ‘The Swing’. Along with her dress, Mr. Andrews’ shirt also appears to shine in the brightness of the sunlight, even with the sky being quite overcast. Notice, also, the bench which Mrs. Andrews sits on. It appears much too elaborate and beautiful to be designed to sit in this wheat field. This is simply been painted in this way to emphasise the romantic, pretty air of the Rococo era, which is so evident in ‘The Swing’.
This painting is set in Bulmer Tye, North Essex, where the wealthy couple lived. The piece was painted shortly after their wedding in 1748. The landscape, along with the figures, is evidently important in revealing possible meanings and messages of the painting. Mrs Andrews dress isn’t only just reminiscent of the Rococo style, but also indicates the couples extreme wealth, her dress and shoes look expensive. This isn’t the only symbol indicating their wealth. Both figures are also quite pale and thin, suggesting that they don’t work for a living which tells of their upper class privilege. Also, the land in which they are situated in the painting, was actually also owned by them. This expansive estate that can seen going on and on in the distance gives another demonstration of their wealth. Including these things in the painting suggest the couple wanted to prove and show off their financial status.
Notice how the oak tree stands directly behind Mrs Andrews, as if in symbolism of her fertility and a suggestion of the family tree she will have to create. Mrs Andrews (Frances Carter) was only 16 when she married Mr Andrews, who was 22. Modern viewpoint suggests that this painting serves as a much more ominous narrative.
The dog so obediently at Mr Andrews heel could be a symbol of ownership, again a reflection of all the land he owns and another flaunt of his wealth. It could also suggest his ownership of Mrs Andrews. This is also suggested because of the fact that he is standing, and in front of her indicating his leadership and ownership.
Romanticism The Romantic era began in the late 18th century and ended in the middle of the 19th. Romanticism has been described as more of an attitude than a set of characteristics, but the main theme of the movement was the belief and value of individual experience. It was a change from the previous rationalism and order of the Neoclassical period.
Wanderer above the Sea of Fog Caspar David Friedrich c. 1818 Oil-on-canvas 98.4 cm Ă— 74.8 cm (37.3 in Ă— 29.4 in) Kunsthalle Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
This painting is part of the romantic era. It depicts a solitary figure, wearing a long coat and holding a walking stick. He is turned away from the audience stood atop a cluster of rocks, overlooking a vast scenery of foggy landscape. The mountains can be seen peaking out of the fog faded in the distance, among the pale sky. The painting takes on a rather strict palette, and a rather cool temperature, except for the figures fiery hair. Some believe that this painting could actually be a self portrait of Friedrich because he too could be recognized by such hair. We get the idea that the figure in this painting is stood above the world in deep thought and contemplation. There’s a sense of self reflection, a calm mood, tranquil atmosphere about the landscape and isolation of the figure.
This paintings composition is interesting. Friedrich has decided to paint the figure with his back to the viewer but this doesn’t mean the subject is shutting the audience out, but rather this allows us to see the world through his eyes, and share in his experience. We can now glance across the great sea of fog with the figure. Although some people do believe that the figure could be Friedrich himself, other sources suggest that the he is actually a particular person, a highranking forestry officer, Col. Friedrich Gotthard von Brincken, of the Saxon infantry, to be specific. This is suggested because of the long green coat he wears, similar to the uniform of the volunteer rangers called into service against Napoleon by King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia. This man was most likely killed in 1813 or 1814, which would make this painting a patriotic tribute.
This is a landscape painting, but rather than being the usual horizontal orientation, Friedrich has chosen to paint this piece vertically. This upright position of the canvas actually accentuates the figure, and his tall posture, as well as the vertical rocks scattered about the canvas, coming up out of the fog. It narrows are experience to just the figure and what he could see, and also a specific part of the scenery, which is the great expanse of landscape ahead, rather than the figure and rock he stands on. Friedrich, using this technique of painting a figure with his back to the viewer, makes the figure mysterious. We are left unsure what he is thinking or his reaction to the landscape. This makes the mood difficult to attain, however, we get the sense of awe and spooky atmospheric value emerging from the piece, there is a feeling of melancholy but also excitement and adventure. The mans stature seems confident, as he leans on his cane, relaxing his other hand in his pocket. He seems content atop the cluster of rocks. This is typical of Romantic ideals, and other paintings of the Romantic era. This composition exhibits a use of bright palette. Friedrich mixes blues and pinks across the sky and the mountain in the distance reflect these colours. The figures green coat and redish hair stands out among the landscape. The light in this piece, although obviously coming from the sky, also seems to be directed up from beneath the rock which illuminates the fog, causing the rock the figure stands on to be masked mostly in silhouette.
The Raft of The Medusa
Gericault 1818-19 Oil on canvas, 491 x 716 cm
This painting was created by French Romantic painter Théodore Géricault and was done using oil on canvas. The painting has the monumental scale of 491 x 716 cm. Géricault painted this piece to depict the futile struggle of the passengers of The Medusa and his epic, or possibly inadequate, attempt to give the survivors a voice. The Medusa was a navy frigate that crashed on a sandy reef off the West Coast of Africa. Some of the more fortunate passengers were taken to safety on to the ship's boats, however, the less fortunate assembled themselves on to a self-made raft, which was later discovered to be deliberately cast adrift, sending the survivors out to sea. The conspiracy was fuelled by the fact that the captain of the Medusa, an officer of the Ancien Régime, had not sailed for over twenty years.
At first glance, you can see multiple figures, and count about 20 (although there started approximately 150 in the actual event). The figures are all sprawled across a wooden raft, that appears to be breaking up and made up of a broken ship, as you can see the sail at the left of the painting. The raft and figures are in the foreground of the image and in the background we see the choppy waves of the ocean. A wave to the left looks extremely violent and about to crash over the raft. On the left very far in the distance the grey silhouette of another ship, Argus, can be seen. We see that there are two pyramidal shapes in this painting. One of them are a group of people holding each other on the right of the painting. We notice how they appear to be trying to flag the other ship down, waving pieces of cloth and arms in the direction of the ship. They all join together to help push one another up in a pyramid in desperate hope that the ship will see them.
However, the other pyramidal shape in this painting is to the left where the sail stands. We can see that on this side of the painting the people tend to be mostly dead, falling, losing energy; one man looks as if he’s completely given up. The ship is so far away that at first glance, it’s not even noticeable in the painting, a single tiny blob of paint in the distant horizon. And we still have the imminent threat of that violent wave about to crash over the raft. The imagery here is very clear to an audience. We get the apparent feeling that everyone on the raft is doomed. The colours in this painting also suggest this ominous mood. The stormy sky, the black behind the clouds create a dark impression. Black, brown and the dull greens and greys of the ocean appear to be central colours in this piece, suggesting the devastation and sad tone of the painting. The colour red appears throughout the painting, hidden amongst the struggle of people suggesting danger and death and blood. Along the horizon where the ship is, a streak of gold or yellow lights the sky, in symbolism of the small flicker of hope the ship represents. Notice the use of chiaroscuro in this painting to create the intense and dramatic appearance to portray the uncontrollable chaos of the situation. The scale of this painting also makes it appear to be life-sized which adds to this because it seems as if this scene is happening right in front of you if you were to see it in person. Paintings of this scale were usually reserved for heroes of the time, Gericault created this painting this large to make a political rebellion, showcasing the stories of the survivors as heroes and making an audience aware of what they had to endure through the horrific beauty and tragedy of this painting.
Gericault wanted to complete this painting with the best of his abilities, making sure he achieved every part of it with correctness true to the actual event. He based the painting of the account of two survivors. He drew sketches from their intonations and planned the painting out like a classical painting, which is evident in the finished piece.
Because Gericault wanted the painting to be as real as possible, he visited the morgue and did observational anatomical paintings of dead flesh to envision what the drowned flesh would look like.
GÊricault included these objects hidden in the painting, a bloodied axe and what appears to be a royal uniform, possibly the captain’s hinting at the conspicuous theory that the Medusa was purposely devastated under order of the monarchy. The bloodied axe symbolises the extremes and horror the passenger's of the medusa had to endure, the axe must relate to the ideas of cannibalism.
GĂŠricault showcases cannibalism in his earlier pieces and planning's of The Raft of The Medusa.
Cannibalism on the Raft of the Medusa Black crayon, brown ink wash, and white gouache on beige paper 28 by 38 cm. Louvre, Paris. 1818-19
History of photography The word "photography" is usually attributed to Sir John Herschel in 1839, and is based on the Greek φῶς (phos), (genitive: phōtós) meaning "light", and γραφή (graphê), meaning "drawing, writing", together meaning "drawing with light".
Camera Obscura In ancient times a camera obscura was used to project images on a wall, thus capturing the image for a while. The camera obscura was also referred to as a pinhole image because the scene is projected through a small hole in that screen as a reversed and inverted image (left to right and upside down) on a surface opposite to the opening. The surroundings of the projected image have to be relatively dark for the image to be clear, so many historical camera obscura experiments were performed in dark rooms.
During the 16th century, brightness and clarity of camera obscuras was improved by enlarging the hole inserting a telescope lens. This became popular during this time among artists, specifically painters, as they used it as tool to project scenes onto surfaces to trace and sketch and paint them.