NAR #9: Reexamining the Familiar

REEXAMINING THE FAMILIAR ISSUE 9 FALL 2012 NORTHWESTERNARTREVIEW.ORG

»

NORTHWESTERN / ART / REVIEW

» REEXAMINING THE FAMILIAR

NORTHWESTERN / ART / REVIEW

MADELINE AMOS president

EDITORIAL STAFF & BLOGGERS

mamos@u.northwestern.edu

MARNI BARTA editor-in-chief

HANNAH LEE

hannahlee2014@u.northwestern.edu CHRISTIE WOOD

marnibarta@gmail.com

ERIN KIM publisher

erinkim2013@u.northwestern.edu

KATHRYN CANNADY events chair kathryncannady2013@u.northwestern.edu

NANCY DASILVA director of publicity nancydasilva2014@u.northwestern.edu

HEBA HASAN web director

christinewood2015@u.northwestern.edu

WILLA WOLFSON willawolfson2013@u.northwestern.edu

CAMILLE REYES

camillecreyes@gmail.com

KAYLA REUBEN

kaylareuben2014@u.northwestern.edu

EDITORIAL STAFF & EVENTS SAMANTHA OFFSAY

samanthaoffsay2013@u.northwestern.edu

SINEAD LOPEZ

sineadlopez2015@u.northwestern.edu

hebahasan2013@u.northwestern.edu

FEATURED ARTIST EDITOR SAMANTHA GUFF web director

JASMINE JENNINGS

samanthaguff2015@u.northwestern.edu

jasminejennings2013@u.northwestern.edu

art history department advisor

PROFESSOR CHRISTINA KIAER art theory and practice department advisor

PROFESSOR LANE RELYEA

NAR is a non-commercial journal published by students at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. Images are copyright their respective owners through Creative Commons, contributed by authors, and from ARTstor.org and used within their Terms and Conditions.

Written material is © 2012, all rights reserved. Reproduction without permission is prohibited.

Âť NAR

is a student-produced journal based at Northwestern University dedicated to publishing undergraduate papers on art history and contemporary art trends. If you are interested in submitting a research paper or art review for publication in the journal, please contact our editorin-chief at marnibarta@gmail.com. If you are an undergraduate at any institute of higher education and interested in contributing in other ways, please contact the president at mamos@u.northwestern.edu.

FROM THE EDITOR REEXAMINING THE FAMILIAR

A

rt has long been a means through which

sance, a period that was traditionally dominated

artists and scholars alike “reexamine the

by men, and we look at how Michael Elmgreen

familiar.” It is common for artists to take

and Ingar Dragset confront various issues associ-

ordinary subject matters and introduce new ideas

ated with the omnipotence of luxury brands in to-

through representation and the process of produc-

day’s culture through Prada, Marfa, a sculptural

ing works of art. Similarly, scholars may contribute

installation in Texas.

meaningfully to existing literature on thoroughly studied periods of art and genres by introducing

On behalf of NAR, I would like to express our ap-

new points of inquiry.

preciation for the support of the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences and the Office of the Provost.

In our ninth issue of the Northwestern Art Re-

I would also like to extend deep gratitude to the

view, we feature papers by students who offer re-

Northwestern University Art History Department,

freshing perspectives and examine several artists

especially Christina Kiaer, NAR’s department ad-

whose work encourages viewers to reexamine the

visor; Jesús Escobar, Chair of the Department;

familiar. We see how the work of Dutch Golden

and Hannah Feldman, the Director of Undergrad-

Age painter Hendrick Avercamp may be more

uate Studies, as well as the Art Theory and Prac-

deeply understood when considered in light of

tice Department, and especially Lane Relyea, the

the unique conditions of the artist’s life, namely

Department Chair. We would also like to thank the

that Avercamp was deaf and mute, and how Wenc-

staff at the Mary and Leigh Block Museum of Art

eslaus Hollar and Jan Davidsz de Heem used their

at Northwestern University for their enthusiastic

art to examine beauty in the far reaches of nature.

support of and collaboration with NAR.

In this issue we discuss how Eleonora di Toledo celebrated femininity in art during the Renais-

I am also grateful for the assistance of our Pub-

lisher and Graphic Designer, Erin Kim. Our publi-

ates, and we look forward to continuing our role as

cation would not be possible without her excellent

a resource for undergraduate students seeking to

work. In my second publication as Editor, I have

engage in such discourse for years to come.

been fortunate to work with an incredible Executive Board, and each of us are incredibly grateful

MARNI BARTA

for our President Madeline Amos, whose dedica-

DECEMBER 2012

tion to NAR has inspired us all. I would also like

EVANSTON, IL

to thank each member of the editorial team for the hard work they put into producing the Journal. Many thanks Hannah Lee, Kayla Reuben, Samantha Offsay, Camille Reyes, Christine Woods, Sinead Lopez, Willa Wolfson, and Jasmine Jennings.

Lastly, thank you to all the students across the country that submitted papers for our fall journal. It has been inspiring to read the impressive scholarship our fellow undergraduates have produced. Through our journal, we on NAR encourage art historical scholarship among undergradu-

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1L »A by

A

WINTER’S

N D S C A P E

Hilary R ibbens, page 8

2» A

SIGHT AND REPRESENTATION: PROCESS FOR VISUAL

DISCOVERY IN 17TH CENTURY NETHERLANDS by

Jane Cavalier, page 16

3»

THE ARTISTIC INFLUENCE OF

ELEONORA DI TOLEDO by

Catherine Clark, page 26

4»

HIGH FASHION’S APPROPRIATION OF

ARTISTIC COOL: PRADA, MARFA by

Stefan Idowu-Bello, page 38

NOTES, page 48

page

8

page

16

page

26

page

38

A WINTER’S LANDSCAPE by

HILARY RIBBENS

university of california, los angeles

he winter landscapes of Hendrick Avercamp, infused with detail and the essence of Dutch winter, stand out in the history of Dutch landscape painting. They are visually enticing due to the carefully detailed depiction of the lively figures that enliven these frozen landscapes with their skating activities, a common theme in Avercamp’s winter landscapes.

While the works of predecessors such

T

»

WINTER LANDSCAPE WITH A BIRD TRAP — Pieter Brueghel the Elder

1565

as Pieter Bruegel the Elder clearly influenced Avercamp’s paintings, Avercamp’s work develops its own momentum and niche 1 in the history of Dutch art. This niche is not simply the creation of the winter landscape genre, for which many scholars credit him, but the way in which he deliberately combines the everyday experience of ice-skating with the genre of landscape painting.

Avercamp’s later work is more than just a sterile combination of these two genres, but a courtship between the two with compromises being made to ensure harmony. An excellent example of this courtship is his painting Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal, currently hanging in the Los Angeles County Museum of 2 Art’s Ahmanson Building. To comprehend the complexity of Avercamp’s work, we must first understand the artist and his context.

Hendrick Avercamp was born in Amsterdam in 1585 to Barent and Beatrix Avercamp. While he 10

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

Despite the challenge of deafness, in an age before standardized sign language or schools for the deaf... it is astounding that Avercamp was able to function in society as an artist. was still very young, his family moved to Kampen where Barent Avercamp became a respected owner of the town apothecary, a physician, and church elder. After they moved to Kampen, Hendrick’s parents had four more 3 children. Although all the Avercamp children were born into a respected family, Hendrick experienced a very different world than his siblings. Hendrick Avercamp, a widely acclaimed artist in his day, was deaf and mute. While scholars disagree on how much weight should be given to the artist’s deafness as one evaluates his work, I argue that it presents an illuminating lens through which to view

Avercamp’s work. Despite the challenge of deafness, in an age before standardized sign language or schools for the deaf (the first school for the deaf was not established in the Netherlands until 1785), it is astounding that Avercamp was able to function 4 in society as an artist. There is also evidence that after his father’s death in 1602, Hendrick became an apprentice for Pieter Isaacsz, a painter in Amsterdam.

Legal documents refer to a mute residing in Isaacsz’s household in 1607. Although apprenticed under Isaacsz, Avercamp’s work seems to be more influenced by the Flemish painters of the day that were living in Amsterdam.

Avercamp did not remain in Amsterdam for the course of his career but returned to Kampen 5 in 1610. His return to his hometown gave birth to his nickname “De Stomme van Kampen,” or 6 “The Mute of Kampen.” This nickname serves as another reminder of the artist’s uniqueness by associating Avercamp with Kampen. Not only was he deaf and mute, but he also chose

WINTER SCENE ON A FROZEN CANAL

to leave the lively city of Amsterdam and instead live and work in a small town of minor cultural or historical significance. While his location influenced him in subject matter, as his landscapes are very similar to the area surrounding Kampen, it also influenced the medium in which he worked. Because he was removed from Amsterdam’s art market, it benefited him to make drawings with pen on paper, which he

would then highlight with watercolor, as these drawings were, “inexpensive and conveniently 7 transportable.”

Avercamp’s originality is not confined to his artwork or his deafness, but is also seen in his personal life as well. Avercamp never married, leaving no chil8 dren when he died in 1634.

His bachelorhood is noteworthy not only because marriage was a common occurrence dur-

— Hendrick Avercamp

c. 1620

ing this time, but also because it emphasizes how truly silent his world was. He physically could not hear, nor did he have a wife or hoard of children surrounding him to visually evoke sound.

Mariet Westermann takes up this issue of the visualization of silence and sound in Dutch art in her small volume titled “Sound, Silence, and Modernity in Dutch Pictures of Manners.” In her discussion focusing on Dutch paint-

WINTER LANDSCAPE WITH A PEAT BOAT

— Hendrick Avercamp

c. 1608

p

A WINTER’S LANDSCAPE ings from the Golden Age, she states: Despite the manifold efforts to relieve painting’s muteness with sound and speech, the predominant march of Western painting since the Renaissance has been towards silence, or at least towards quieter kinds of painting, towards a modern kind of painting that accepts, embraces, even trumpets its own silence, the better to turn in on itself and place the viewer into a position of 9 hushed attention.

Avercamp understood silence better than anyone, and he challenges this silence in his work. It was in this soundless and hushed world of painting that he turns to icy winter landscapes, silent in nature, and infuses them with visual noise. In doing so he creates a complex new genre that gives an innovative dimension to simple winter landscapes.

An example of the complexi-

ties in Avercamp’s work can be seen in his painting Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal painted circa 1620 in the latter half 10 of Avercamp’s oeuvre. Stylistically, the painting reflects the change in his work after returning to Kampen. The horizon has dropped and the sky has opened up, unencumbered by the trees and architecture of his earlier work, Winter Landscape with 11 Peat Boat. The relatively high vantage point distances the viewer from the activity on the ice and alludes to Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s indirect influence on Avercamp’s work. If one looks at Bruegel’s engraving Skaters By St. 12 George’s Gate in Antwerp and his painting Winter Landscape 13 with a Bird Trap, one can see how Avercamp drew from Bruegel in both subject matter and style, especially in Averacamp’s 14 earlier work.

He would have received these Bruegelian influences from Flemish painters Hans Bol, Gillis van Coinxloo,

15

and David Vinckboons. These influences from the South, coupled with the atmospheric effect characteristic of Avercamp, make his work intriguing and noteworthy.

The atmospheric effect Avercamp is known for is exemplified in Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal and is seen in the hazy sky that alludes to frigid weather but with no sign of precipitation.

This chilly stillness, marked by a “blond tonality,” provides a striking contrast to the richly colored and detailed figures in the fore16 ground. To take in the diversity represented on the ice one must look closely at the details, both humorous and informative, that Avercamp has included. In the mid-right section of the painting, we see a man who has taken a fall and appears to be bleeding.

If we look a little farther back we see a small figure with dark skin, perhaps a servant brought back from a Dutch Colony. This small servant boy, as well as the gypsies in the foreground, provides 14

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

The careful portrayal of daily life during a Dutch winter speaks to the deliberate nature with which Avercamp approached his paintings. a contrast to the richly dressed group in the bottom-right corner of the painting. Avercamp has not created characters to fill empty space but has astutely observed and depicted the span of socio-economic classes that would have been seen out on the ice on a winter’s day.

The careful portrayal of daily life during a Dutch winter speaks to the deliberate nature with which Avercamp approached his paintings. This deliberation and attention to detail in his work indicates that these figures are not mere accessories of the landscape, meant to dress up an empty winter scene or provide relief for horror vacui. The landscape does not simply act as a backdrop for a flurry of winter

activity. The atmospheric effect is so carefully achieved and captures how the light appears in a world white with snow and ice so well that it does not allow the viewer to pass it over. It begs to be seen as a whole. This is confirmed by the way in which these detailed figures fade so smoothly into the hazy distance where it is difficult to tell where the ice stops and the sky begins.

The noisy everyday activity in Avercamp’s winter landscape creates an intimate marriage between not only landscape and genre art, but also between silence, embodied in his painting’s atmospheric effect, and noise, visually rendered in the activity of his characters. This relationship between sound and silence is a reality that Avercamp could not experience due to his deafness and that he was left to imagine in his paintings. His paintings are silent worlds, infused with the artist’s perception of visual noise that no one can actually hear. As we look at Avercamp’s Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal, we are all in his reality of a dis-

CARS: SCARY OR SEXY? tant, silent, observing world.

SKATERS BY ST. GEORGE’S GATE IN ANTWERP

— Pieter Brueghel the Elder

c. 1559-1600

SIGHT AND REPRESENTATION:

A PROCESS FOR VISUAL DISCOVERY IN 17TH CENTURY NETHERLANDS by

JANE CAVALIER dartmouth college

he visual culture of the Netherlands in the mid17th Century understood art as a lens focused on the world. From greydrone flies to silvergilded goblets, all of God’s creations, whether minute or cosmic, natural or man-made, were worthy of study and appreciation. Wenceslaus Hollar (1607-1677) and Jan Davidsz. de Heem (1606-1883/84) were two artists who partook in this tradition, pushing

T

»

DIVERSAE INSECTORUM ALIGERORUM, PLATE 4 — Wenceslaus Hollar

c. 1646

DIVERSAE INSECTORUM ALIGERORUM, PLATE 6 — Wenceslaus Hollar

c. 1646

the discovery and representation of nature to its limits — in pursuit of beauty in its extremities and after “new worlds” for 1 observation. Hollar, who was 18

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

born in Czechoslovakia, spent most of his career in England working as a draftsman. During a two-year residence in An2 twerp (1644-1646), however,

he applied his attentive eye and “straightforward, unaffected” hand as he adopted the marvels of Dutch microscopic study for 3 his subjects. De Heem, a still life painter active in Utrecht and Antwerp, used an equally clear

eye and knowing hand to create virtuoso pronkstilleven. In Hollar’s eight-engraving series Diversae Insectorum Aligerorum and de Heem’s Still Life with Grapes, each artist masterfully applies the ideals of the Dutch visual culture espoused by the microscopist Robert Hooke in Micrographia: “a sincere Hand and faithful Eye, to examine, and to record, the things them4 selves as they appear.” Their difference, however, lies in the fact that Hollar understands this process of study and recreation as an end within itself, while de Heem uses these principles as a means to create a rich and delectable feast for the eye with a poignant religious message.

Hollar’s series of eight engravings, Diversae Insectorum Aligerorum, are vaguely symmetrical displays of a variety of insects including: butterflies, moths, flies, caterpillars, and snails. The insects are stationary, separated by blank white space and often rendered from different perspectives. Hollar adjusts his perspective to most thor-

sight and represetation: a process for visual

DISCOVERY IN 17TH CENTURY NETHERLANDS oughly convey an insect’s particular attributes, a decision which reinforces the descriptive function of his careful, crisp render5 ings. To know is to distinguish, and his delineating organization of the insects satisfies not only the Dutch public’s aesthetic interest in them, but also encourages the viewer to compare one 6 insect to another. Each mark in the engraving is precise and distinct, allowing him to depict variations in texture and design so faithfully that many of the insects have a tactile appeal to the viewer, such as the supple caterpillar and unidentified spiny creature on plate 4.

Hollar encourages comparisons between the insects through juxtapositions in texture, such as the caterpillar and spiny specimen, in scale, with the ladybug and snail on plate 6, and in pattern, as in the two moths, one sharply black-andwhite spotted and the other with slight variations in gray tone,

also on the bottom of plate 6.

The arrangement of the insects also suggests that many of his representations were drawn from displays of dead butterflies and moths pinned to flat surfac7 es. These often appeared in cabinets of curiosity, or Kunst und Wunderkammer, which drew on the encyclopedic tradition of Dutch princes and the belief that “natural wonders” served as 8 “examples of God’s ingenuity.”

While the underlying symmetry in the insects’ presentation in a Kunst und Wunderkammer would have suggested a “harmony and order of the universe,” the act of studying and comparing the species would help the viewer to more fully understand 9 the mysteries of God’s creation.

Nonetheless, each insect is so attentively and crisply represented that it lends itself to the tradition of women abstracting their favorite insects to be copied for 10 embroidery. The dragonfly on plate 7 exemplifies Hollar’s care-

ful treatment of nature’s minutia. He represents each miniscule segment of the dragonfly’s wings faithfully, with the clarity of an all-knowing eye, or at least that of a microscope’s lens.

After looking through a microscope’s lens for the first time, Constantijn Huygens wrote: “Nothing can compel us to honor more fully the infinite wisdom and power of God the Creator unless, satiated with the wonders of nature that up till now have been obvious to everyone… we are led into this second treasurehouse of nature; and in the most minute and disdained of creatures meet with the same careful labor of the Great Architect, everywhere an equally indescribable 11 majesty.”

Hollar has harnessed his sight and craft to fully represent nature’s wonders. His act of careful recreation is a testament to the knowledge one acquires uniquely through the process of mak20

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

12

ing. He understands each segment of the dragonfly’s wings as “pearls or hemispheres,” which is how Hooke describes the eyes of a grey-drone fly. Seeing this splendor and possibility, he encapsulates the minutia of divine 13 design by recording it.

Hooke articulates this motivation in moral, religious, and practical terms in Micrographia: or, Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies Made

by Magnifying Glasses with Observations and Inquiries Thereupon, in which he studies insects as minute as fleas and mites under a microscope, and records his observations textually and with large drawings, as though his hand itself is a lens for the reader. He suggests that humans are morally compelled to “remedy” their senses with science, which man himself has tarnished with “negligence, and intemperance, and a willful and superstitious deserting the Pre14 scripts and Rules of Nature.”

He believes it is man’s obliga-

DIVERSAE INS ALIGERORUM — Wenceslaus Hollar

c. 1646 tion to work toward a perceptual ideal because it informs his rightful ability to “command” 15 nature. Hollar’s process is also religious. With an inquisitive and exacting eye, he may un-

SECTORUM M, PLATE 4 derstand and contemplate the 16 extent of God’s work. He then shares this revelation with the viewer by describing the insects fully, each mark a testament to his own understanding. Finally,

Hooke describes the practical function of careful observation in relation to memory. He writes that “our own minds conspire to betray us,” and this counteracts the delight and obligation

of knowing a divinely created 17 world. Hollar’s process is a compelling exploration, as he extends the boundaries of the eye with the microscope, and the physical boundaries of the hand

STILL LIFE WITH GRAPES — Jan Davidsz. de Heem

c. 1655-1660

by tying it directly to the eye.

With exquisite craftsmanship, Hollar interprets the moral, religious, and practical significance of natural discovery as an end 22

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

within itself. Skill in representation is just as important as looking through the lens because it is an extension of the process of visual exploration. The Baco-

nian conception of representing nature though text and image as “the basis of new knowledge” 18 is preeminent. However, the man that can hold nature in his art, and in this sense, in his hand, has the ultimate concep-

tion of God’s creation because he can recreate it. Svetlana Alpers suggests virtuosity “confirm[s] man in his ability to encompass 19 [nature].”

Just as the Kunst und Wunderkammer sought to assemble and recreate nature’s “marvels” on a small scale, so too do Hollar’s engravings through 20 masterful draftsmanship. His drawings’ clarity and attention to detail diminish the distinction between observation of an observation and observation of the thing itself. Through this process, he connects the spectator with the insects he represents, and enables them to know better – visually and even tactilely – the sublime framework 21 within which they exist.

Still life painters, such as de Heem, looked to the microscopic studies of insects for their own 22 realist portrayals. In Still Life with Grapes, de Heem uses a similarly attentive eye and sensitive hand to create a splendid pronkstilleven comprised of grape wraths, stalks of wheat, pumpkins, a peach, wine grasses, a velvet cloth, a variety of insects,

sight and represetation: a process for visual

DISCOVERY IN 17TH CENTURY NETHERLANDS and at its center, a glistening silver-gilded goblet. He positions the viewer directly front and center of the interweaving and overlapping objects. Their interactions, combined with his poignant treatment of light, which becomes increasingly bright from left to right and from back to front (though consistently warm), create a theater of exciting visual relationships to be examined. His illusionism is a tour de force of texture, tonality, and manipulation of light. In a single sweep, the viewer’s eye feasts upon the moistness of the green grapes then moves to a radiant wheat stalk, which draws close to the glinting gilded goblet, whose bright shine is juxtaposed against the warmer shine of the grapes. De Heem establishes dynamic interactions through these juxtapositions, which encourage attentive looking and visual comparisons. He contrasts the natural to the man-made, the inside of the goblet’s lid to the

outside, the brilliance of glass to the shine of metal, the curl of the leaf to the crumple of the tapes23 try, and so on. He, like Hollar, encourages the Baconian practice of knowledge by distinguishing, which can only be achieved 24 by faithful representation.

De Heem also harnesses illusionism to convey the tangibility of the objects and to implicate the viewer in visual examination and discovery. Hollar does this with precise line and distinct tonality, while de Heem connects the objects of his still life to the viewer primarily by representing a space that is continuous with the viewer’s own space.

For instance, the stalks of wheat and dying leaves fall toward the viewer, grazing the surface of the picture plane as they stretch toward his or her space and simultaneously evoke movement.

He also provides a context for the pronk, a stone interior, and a vaguely apparent arch, which serves as a backdrop for their

theatrical interactions. These dynamic relationships unite the still life compositionally, achieving a sense of continuity that is reinforced by the dark, atmospheric space and illusionistic treatment of light. Finally, de Heem captures the reflection of his studio window on the gilded goblet to suggest a continuation of the viewer’s space into that of the picture plain, as well as to give the work a context of actual creation in his studio. By visually implicating the viewer, de Heem brings the viewer’s probing eye closer to the splendid feast and satiates the viewer’s hunger for luxury in his rich representation.

While De Heem, like Hollar, looks to push the boundaries of the relationship between the hand and the eye, he also represents nature at its own boundaries in Still Life with Grapes. Bacon considered this a hallmark of virtuosity, “seeing that the nature of things betrays itself more readily under the vexations of art than in its natural free24

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

While De Heem, like Hollar, looks to push the boundaries of the relationship between the hand and the eye, he also represents nature at its own boundaries...

25

dom.” De Heem accomplishes this through his masterful treatment of the painting, as in his representation of the translucent, empty wine glass, made visible only through highlights upon its surface, as well as in his dexterous rendering of the dragonfly’s delicate and translucent wings. In each case, he probes the limits of materiality to make the tangible inseparable from a surrounding intangible space.

He stretches nature to better ex26 pose her.

Hollar uses his lens and careful hand to extend and expose the boundaries of nature, and de Heem embraces this practice in his own poignantly clear

and brightly lit representation of insects; however, de Heem embraces artfulness in his still life, or the opportunity to manipulate nature’s boundaries uniquely within art, as a process of visual discovery in and of itself. The process of recording nature also takes on a more distinctly religious purpose in Still Life with Grapes. De Heem embeds the image with vanitas and Eucharist symbols. This process of representation of nature is an act of religious contemplation. His decision to place a variety of insects within the scene as animals with short lives and proponents of the fruits’ decay is a vanitas symbol, a reminder of the temporality of luxury and 27 that all on earth will rot.

In The Embarrassment of Riches, Simon Schama suggests vanitas in still life paintings are a perfunctory gesture on the part of the artist to rectify the “moral burden” of splendor and abundance, while the artist’s primary concern remains the satisfaction of the eye through beauty 28 and illusionism. However, this

is not the case in Still Life with Grapes, as de Heem’s message of vanitas supports the larger Eucharist framework of iconography and would have been read as such by a seventeenth-century viewer. The peach represents salvation, while the gilded goblet framed by a stone arch is “given pride of place, as if it were a chalice containing the Communion 29 wine.”

Joy Kenseth suggests that the wheat stalks and grapes, which fall from the upper right of the composition, marked by nails and a blue bow, may refer to Christ’s descent from the 30 cross.

Visual comparison is key to understanding the objects represented, but it also helps the viewer to understand the religious message of the still life.

De Heem compares plump, lively green grapes with decaying grapes in the same bundle 31 to the right of the composition.

He also compares the luminous green grapes with rotting purple ones that he positions within the shadows to the left of the composition. These visual juxtapositions enable the viewer

sight and represetation: a process for visual

DISCOVERY IN 17TH CENTURY NETHERLANDS to contemplate the physical effects of decay of life, and further, Christ‘s decay as he was lowered from the cross. The pertinence of this contemplation depends on achieving convincing illusionism, as the supple grapes rot and begin to evoke the temporal qualities of human flesh. De Heem thus connects visual study to religious reflection, suggesting one can serve the other if craft can push the limits between an object and its portrayal.

The intentions of each artist materialize in their differing representations of insects. In Diversae Insectorum Aligerorum, Hollar is compelled on moral, religious, and practical terms to extend his senses with a microscope in pursuit of a better understanding of nature and the discovery of new realms of the divine framework. He also explores his own physical limits in connecting his hand to his eye to represent nature faithfully – a process that enables the viewer

as well as himself – to probe the ingenuity of divine creation. His precise and unadorned style reflects his documentary motivations to describe and enable visual comparisons between the insects. In Still Life with Grapes, De Heem builds upon these studies to not only reinforce Dutch seventeenth-century values of visual inquiry, but also to satiate the eye’s pursuit of pleasure and to provide a pointed religious message. Craft is equally critical in carrying out the latter two goals for both the viewer and the artist, as the poignancy of those aims draws the viewer closer to the thing itself, which in de Heem’s painting serves a simultaneously pleasurable and moralizing function. However, it is the process of creation that 32 “confirm[s]” both Hollar and de Heem in their ability to encapsulate nature to “produc[e] new Worlds and Terra-Incogni33 tas to our view.”

THE ARTISTIC INFLUENCE OF

ELEONORA DI

TOLEDO by

CATHERINE CLARK northwestern university

leonora di Toledo, the wife of Duke Cosimo I de’Medici, drew attention to femininity in a sphere dominated by the perspectives, desires, and work of men: the world of Renaissance art.

The feminine decorations in her private apartments in the Palazzo della Signoria, her family’s state portraiture, and her purchase of the Palazzo Pitti mainly

E

»

— Agnolo Bronzino

c. 1540

CHAPEL OF ELEONORA DI TOLEDO

PALAZZO DELLA SIGNORIA (KNOWN TODAY AS THE PALAZZO VECCHIO)

28

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

comprise her artistic and architectural repertoire, which she launched when she was secure in her position and wealth, after having fulfilled her main duty of 1 birthing her first son. Eleonora di Toledo strategically commissioned and influenced such works by a variety of artists as a means to honor women, particularly women’s role of mother, to illustrate the characteristics of the ideal Renaissance woman, and to maintain her family’s diplomatic relations and secure them for the future.

Eleonora di Toledo was born in Spain in 1522 to Don Pedro de Toledo and Doña Maria Osorio Pimentel. In 1532 her father became the Spanish viceroy of Naples, and in 1534 Eleonora along with her mother and siblings joined him in Italy. Five years later, in March of 1539, Florentine Duke Cosimo de’ Medici, who had been taken by Eleonora’s looks upon seeing her in Naples years earlier, engaged in negotiations with Don Pedro for his young daughter Eleono2 ra’s hand in marriage . On June

29th of that same year, Eleonora and Duke Cosimo I de’Medici were married in Florence, making her Duchess of Florence and 3 Siena.

Their marriage not only served many diplomatic purposes, but also brought both the bride and groom great satisfaction. Diplomatically speaking, the union between Eleonora and Cosimo primarily established solid relations between Spanish and Florentine nobility. Furthermore, the ceremony was the first sign of artistic and cultural rejuvenation in Florence since the Medici family reclaimed power following the Sack of Rome and the corresponding siege of Florence. Finally, Eleonora’s fertility made her a valuable asset for the Medici family as they attempted to regain control after their rule had been temporarily severed.

She and Cosimo had eleven children, eight of whom survived, including future Dukes Francesco I and Ferdinando I. The diplomatic success of their marriage paralleled their success on a personal level. Cosimo and Eleonora

the artistic influence of

ELEONORA DI TOLEDO represented both physical unity and political solidarity. They reveled in each other’s presence, and Eleonora joined Cosimo on his travels and aristocratic activities whenever possible. Additionally, she stepped into his role in his absence and partook in decision-making responsibilities. Weakened by tuberculosis, Eleonora died of malarial fever 4 on December 17, 1562.

Eleonora made vast artistic contributions both as a patron and as a source of feminine inspiration during the years in which she was married to Cosimo. The decorations in her apartment at the Palazzo della Signoria were one major contribution. The circumstances under which Cosimo and Eleonora set up this residence paved the way for the feminine imagery that adorn her walls. Cosimo and Eleonora moved into the Palazzo della Signoria, now known as the Palazzo Vecchio, in 1540, shortly after their marriage. Cosimo wanted

to provide Eleonora with quarters fit for a lady of her high rank and took this new residence as an opportunity to reassure his new father-in-law that he was worthy 5 of the marriage. Thus, because the apartments were supposed to be a sign of honor and source of luxury for Eleanora, it is fitting that the adornments celebrate and revere Eleonora’s role as a mother, wife, politician, and ideal Renaissance woman. The virtues incorporated into these decorations can be interpreted both as mirroring Eleonora’s admirable qualities and setting an example for her to strive towards.

About eight rooms on the Palazzo della Signoria’s second floor, including her chapel, comprise the duchess’s apartment.

Eleonora’s private rooms went through two phases of decoration that contemporaneously corresponded to the events of her life. The first set of renovations took place from 1539 to 1545, when Eleonora was newly wed-

ded to Cosimo and had begun bearing children. This round of renovations included the fresco decorations in the Camera Verde, the central room of the first phase, as well as decorations in Eleonora’s study and Bronzino’s famous chapel frescoes. Symbols of fertility and the union of the Toledo and Medici families characterize the Camera Verde and the Scrittoio, honoring Eleonora’s childbearing role and importance to posterity. A coat of arms including both families’ symbols stands out among the ceiling decorations in the central room, all executed by Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio, and ripe fruits symbolizing fecundity adorn the 6, 7 study’s ceiling.

Given that Eleonora gave birth to her children between the year 1540 and 1554, the emphasis on fertility in these 8 early renovations makes sense.

Providing heirs was her most important role, and certainly her primary role at this time.

Female figures and reproductive iconography dominate the 30

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

busy composition in the frescoes of Eleonora’s private chapel painted by Bronzino, who included many biblical stories such as the Adoration of the Brazen Serpent, the Crossing of the Red Sea, Moses Striking the Rock, and the Gathering of the Manna. Throughout all of these narratives, women are either the central figures or they outnum9 ber the men.

In the case of Moses Striking the Rock, art closely imitates life.

A very pregnant woman represents Eleonora and the recent birth of Francesco, probably the most important event of her reign because he was the first male descendant. Moses, the provider in the story, is situated next to the pregnant woman.

His close proximity and role as provider indicates that he represents Cosimo. A figure thought to be Bronzino’s self-portrait is also present near these two figures, which flaunts the artist’s 10 close ties to the ducal couple.

Not only are women abundant in

the scenes, but babies and small children are as well. Eleonora represented fertility and fecundity, key characteristics of a Renaissance woman, and Bronzino emphasizes that in her chapel.

The main accomplishment of the second set of apartment renovations was a large, cohesive, and blatantly feminine fresco cycle designed by Giorgio Vasari and painted by Giovanni Stradano. This took place from 1559 to 1564, throughout four rooms along the east side of the Pala11 zzo. Each of the four rooms was dedicated to virtuous women from different sources—antiquity, the Old Testament, mythol12 ogy, and Florentine history. By the time of the second set of renovations, Eleonora’s childbearing years were over, and these narratives marked a departure from the childbearing theme of the previous renovation. Instead, they celebrate a wide range of Eleonora’s virtues by placing her in the company of illustrious women and set an example of the ideal woman.

The room dedicated to antiq-

MOSES STRIKING THE ROCK — Agnolo Bronzino

1540-46

uity shows the story of the intervention of the Sabine women, specifically praising Hersilia.

In this story, the Romans have abducted the daughters of the neighboring Sabine people to take as wives. Years later when the Sabine men attempt revenge by attacking the Romans, the Sabine women intervene and

entreat their fathers not to separate them from their husbands 13 and children. The central oval in the Sala delle Sabine shows Hersilia, daughter of the Sabine leader and wife of the Roman leader, reasoning with her father as he appears to be putting away his sword. The painting is full of action. Although Hersilia

and her father are in the forefront, not far behind them are hundreds of warriors on either side, represented through the visual presence of their weapons if nothing else, and other Sabine women are seen attempting to 14 break up the battle. This scene sets an example for women as both familial matriarchs and

ESTHER AND AHASUREUS — Giorgio Vasari & Giovanni Stradano

1561-62

political figures, both roles that Eleonora fulfilled. The Sabine women put themselves at risk and stood up to their fathers in order to maintain their nuclear family units, while also practicing key diplomatic assets such as negotiation, intervention, and peace-making.

The next room illustrates the Old Testament story of Esther, Jewish wife of the Persian king Ahaseurus, who she dissuades from annihilating Jews through15 out his empire. The ceiling panel in the Sala di Ester shows King Ahaseurus making Esther queen for her display of morality, as he sits on a throne and she 16 bows at his feet. The choice of this particular moment for the ceiling panel communicates another important message, which almost acts as a disclaimer given the feminist theme of the cycle.

Even the accomplishments of the most virtuous women do not surpass those of her husband. There is some discrepancy among historians, however, about whether these heroic women are depicted to outdo the deeds of men or if

they still appear equal or inferior. King Ahaseurus and Esther equally dominate the composition, however, Esther is in a subservient pose. This room also transitions from equal emphasis on the role of the mother and diplomat in the Sala delle Sabine, to stressing Eleonora’s role as Cosimo’s right hand woman and the power she exercised while he was away or by sharing advice with him.

Greek Mythology contributes to the cycle with the story of Penelope. The painting in the ceiling’s circular center depicts her engaging in a ploy to avoid committing to a suitor while her husband Odysseus was away at 17 war. She told her suitors that she would choose one of them when she completed the shroud she was weaving for Odysseus’ father. However, every night she would unravel the weaving she did during the day so she would never have to remarry and could continue to wait for 18 her husband. This room focuses primarily on fidelity, as well as patience. Not long before

the artistic influence of

PENELOPE WEAVING ELEONORA DI TOLEDO — Giovanni Stradano

1561-62

Eleonora’s reign, Isabella d’Este, one of the original and most studied female patrons of Renaissance art, departed from the norm by initiating a collection of didactic rather than erotic or classical mythological paint19 ings. Therefore, one can infer that a possible source of inspiration or model for Eleonora was the patron Isabella d’Este.

Finally, Florentine history

lends the (mythical) story of Gualdrada to bring the cycle of women throughout history to a close. In the 12th century, Gualdara, a young Florentine girl, declined kissing Emperor Otto IV during his visit to Florence because she insisted on saving her kisses for her future hus20 band. This story also bears a double meaning; it illustrates chastity, a necessary character-

istic of an ideal woman, as well as Florence’s independent spirit, as Gualdrada refused to kiss the 21 Holy Roman Emperor. This was particularly pertinent given that the Medici family had just reclaimed power in Florence.

This painting is evidence of continuity between their rule and the former rule of the republic because it shows that the desire for independence still drives the governing body.

As was customary at the time, Duke Cosimo and Duchess Eleonora commissioned a sizeable number of state portraits, mostly

by Bronzino, for many different purposes. Bronzino had already been commissioned for a handful of portraits when he became their only court portrait artist, as dictated by Eleonora’s preference. Although early in 1547 she had commissioned a copy of a Bronzino portrait of second son Giovanni from a Flemish painter, she was disappointed with the results and in March of that same year commissioned yet 34

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

another Giovanni portrait from Bronzino. From that point forward, she did not commission 22 portraits from anyone else.

This indicates that Eleonora was particular about portraiture and involved herself in their commissions, rather than leaving them up to the preferences of Cosimo.

In 1545, Bronzino painted the prominent Portrait of Eleonora di Toledo with her Son Giovanni, depicting Eleonora with an ambiguous expression that has been popularly interpreted in two ways. Some art historians have viewed her emotionless gaze as cold, distant, and full of Hispanic contempt. However, this expression also corresponds with Petrarchan ideals of beauty, which were favored by Bronzino and very fashionable during the Cinquecento when this por23 trait was painted. Additionally, signs of wealth stand out in this double portrait. Eleonora wears a lavish gown and tasteful but obvious jewelry and hair acces24 sories. The ultramarine blue

that permeates the area behind the two figures was known to be an expensive material, so Eleonora and Cosimo obviously had 25 a large budget dedicated to art.

Bronzino painted Eleonora multiple times in a Petrarchan style, emphasizing chastity and virtue through conservative costumes, porcelain skin, and a poised demeanor. Eleonora’s idealism remains a theme among her portraiture, as it is in her apartment frescoes.

In addition to showing her family idealistically, Eleonora used portraiture to advance her family politically. Bronzino created multiple state portraits of Eleonora and her children to be 26 used as diplomatic gifts. Some were sent to powerful Spanish allies, while others were created for the Pope. Among the portraits sent to the Vatican was the 1550 portrait of second son Giovanni. This was obviously part of Eleonora and Cosimo’s efforts to make Giovanni into a cardinal or possibly even a pope, although he was not even seven years old when the portrait was

GUALDRADA REFUSES ELEONORA DI TOLEDO TO KISS OTTO IV the artistic influence of

— Stradanus

1561-62

ELEONORA DI TOLEDO WITH SON GIOVANNI — Agnolo Bronzino

c. 1544-45

done. Second sons often pursued a career with the Church, and Giovanni had been given the name of Leo X, the great Medici pope, at birth; therefore, his future 27 was determined early on.

Aside from the fact that it was a gift for the Pope, the strategic motivation perhaps manifests itself in Giovanni’s red garment, which is the customary color for cardinals’ attire. Eleonora and Cosimo’s efforts were successful, and Giovanni was promised a cardinalate the same year that the portrait 28 was finished. Lastly, the story behind Bronzino’s portrait of Eleonora and eldest son Francesco exemplifies her specificity about certain aspects of her family’s representation. Eleonora requested that Francesco wear a rich red brocade tunic in the portrait. She found it disturbing that Bronzino had begun painting without a real sample of fabric, so she insisted that he complete it

with the most exquisite brocade 29 he could think of. Although Cosimo probably originally commissioned the portrait, Bronzino clearly paid close attention to Eleonora’s preferences.

If the inspiration behind and commissions for the decorations of the Palazzo della Signoria and the family’s portraiture can be classified as collaborations by Cosimo I, Eleonora, and their courtly artists, both because it is an accurate term and because in some cases historians are still unsure of specificities, Eleonora’s purchase of the Palazzo Pitti in Florence has been widely established as a personal contribution to Florence’s ducal lineage. Because she came from such an elite and wealthy family, Eleonora was able to purchase the palace from the Pitti family 30 using her own means. While she was alive, official business was still conducted in the Palazzo della Signoria, and the family lived there during the year, however many grand events such as marriages were celebrated at the Palazzo Pitti, and during the

the artistic influence of

ELEONORA DI TOLEDO summer she and her children re31 treated there.

Eleonora wished to provide a peaceful, clean haven for her children, free from the dirt and crowds of the city center. She also expanded upon the palace’s basic structure that was there at the time of purchase.

In 1560, Eleonora oversaw Ammannati design a courtyard and façade overlooking the Boboli 32 Gardens. The Gardens were extensive and created a theaterlike space, likely for the special occasions that took place at the 33 palace. Eleonora’s architectural and landscape patronage continued to be significant to the families of Cosimo’s successors, who transitioned to living in the Palazzo Pitti full time, making it the grand-ducal residence.

Although the extent of Eleonora di Toledo’s involvement in her art and architecture is limited or unclear at times, it is obvious that her image as the ideal woman acted as an inspiration to the

frescoes in her apartments in Palazzo della Signoria as well as in state portraits, and that her preferences carried significant weight in these paintings along with the purchase and expansion of the Palazzo Pitti. Artists’ correspondence preceding some of these paintings show that she could be a particular patron, but her particularity, good taste, and strategic choices paid off. State portraits show her family favorably, exposing their wealth and solid virtues, and successfully maintained and advanced their diplomatic relations. Visitors today still admire the Palazzo Pitti and its picturesque Boboli Gardens. Even her apartments’ frescoes, for which she served more as an inspiration than a patron, pay Eleonora high compliments through a motif of idealism. Eleonora’s influence was great, and her artistic and architectural involvement helped her make her mark.

HIGH FASHION'S APPROPRIATION OF

ARTISTIC COOL:

PRADA, MARFA by

STEFAN IDOWU-BELLO brown university

ritics and filmgoers alike described the 1956 film, Giant, starring Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, and James Dean as a legendary epic as big as Texas itself. The film evokes images and ideas of a Texas from a bygone era in American history. The “Texas” of Giant is one where “today’s ranch hand can become tomorrow’s multimillionaire” by discovering oil.

C

»

EXTERIOR VIEW OF PRADA, MARFA — Michael Elmegree & Ingar Dragset

2005

This romanticized depiction of post-Antebellum Texas was shot on location in Marfa, Texas.

However, today’s Marfa, Texas is less known as the cinematic background of Giant and more known as a cultural mecca with deep connections to minimal and contemporary art. Renowned minimalist artist Donald Judd lived in Marfa, and the arts organizations he founded, Judd Foundation and Chianti Foundation, are currently located there.

However, one of the major tourist draws to Marfa actually has no official affiliation with Judd at all. The attraction is not even located in Marfa. Twentysix miles outside of Marfa, Texas lays Prada, Marfa, a sculptural installation created by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset, which has appropriated the style and design of a Prada store. I submit that Prada, Marfa (2005) is able to illuminate for viewers the various issues surrounding the omnipotence of luxury brands in 40

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

To the unsuspecting viewer driving along the highway, Prada, Marfa appears as a mirage or siren rising from the Texas desert aimed at luring potential customers to purchase high end luxury goods along their journey. today’s cultural zeitgeist through various techniques and artistic choices, such as those ranging from geographic location to structural design. Specifically, Prada, Marfa addresses issues including the inherent elitism of the art world, gentrification of communities into shopping districts, and difficulties involving corporate art patronage.

Donald Judd, the renowned minimalist artist moved to Marfa, Texas, to get away from the New York art scene. However, Judd’s relocation actually brought about a cultural renaissance in Marfa, with a vibrant arts scene developing and many artists relocating to Mar-

fa. Galleries, restaurants, and boutiques began to pop up in contrast to the rustic Texas landscape. The gentrification of Marfa continued with Donald Judd’s Chinati Foundation organizing an annual “Open House” weekend, where artists, collectors, critics, and art enthusiasts alike head to Texas to visit Marfa’s ever-changing art scene. Today, Marfa is no longer the shooting location of a James Dean-Elizabeth Taylor-Rock Hudson epic about Texas oil. Marfa is now known as a cultural mecca in the middle of the Texas desert.

Elmgreen and Dragset’s Prada, Marfa installation is a fifteen by twenty-five adobe, stucco, and glass structure located along US Route 90 in Valentine, Texas.

The proximity of the installation to Marfa has made it an attraction for those who visit the town every year.

To the unsuspecting viewer driving along the highway, Prada, Marfa appears as a mirage or siren rising from the Texas desert aimed at luring potential customers to purchase high end

SHOE DISPLAY IN PRADA, MARFA luxury goods along their journey.

The installation is a hybrid of sculpture and land art.

The work’s geographic location in the Texas desert is equally as important as the design and construction of piece itself.

Spectators behold the insertion of a high end Italian luxury boutique into the Texas wilderness.

The juxtaposition of the encompassing Texas desert and a European luxury goods store creates a visual and metaphorical irony between the rural Texas landscape and the “urban, consumer

1

based icon” of luxury, fashion, and commerce, that is Prada.

Consequently, the disconnect between the installation and its oppositional setting is so obvious and almost laughable.

Unsuspecting motorists are shocked and surprised as the glass, adobe, and stucco building comes into view as they drive along the highway. Although, designed and constructed according to Prada corporate specifications, Prada, Marfa was built using local building materials and techniques and then paint-

ed white to mirror the fashion brand’s noticeably minimal design. The decision of the artists to use adobe and stucco was conscious, as the materials are biodegradable nature. Adobe is used prominently in the construction of buildings, especially homes, around the world, including in the southwestern region of the United States, in which Texas is located. Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset were adamant on using biodegradable materials, as it was always their intention that Prada,

Marfa was meant to decay into ruins over time. Prada, Marfa was conceived to serve as a time capsule that would not be maintained and would be allowed to disintegrate over time in a “nat2 ural manner.” Unfortunately, the insistence by the artists and organizers on ‘natural decay’ becomes a point of contention when human actors decide to impose their presence onto the installation and interfere with the process of natural decay. Thus, the matter of the maintenance and ‘natural disintegration’ of Prada, Marfa arises.

Prada, Marfa can elicit visceral, sometimes destructive feelings from viewers. However, not all who come into contact with the piece have chosen to inflict damage onto the piece.

Along the side of one wall, there are hundreds of business cards, pieces of paper, and other markers weighed down by small rocks.

These visual markers allow individuals to leave their mark and stake a claim to the installation.

There is an undeniably transient quality to Prada, Marfa. The

high fashion’s apporpriation of

ARTISTIC COOL PRADA, MARFA

sight of an Italian luxury goods store in the Texas desert is almost too outlandish to conceive.

It seems from this point that many travelers decide to impose themselves onto the piece to different degrees. Some feel that a simple note or card will suffice, while others have decided that the occasion calls for grander gestures of destruction.

The location of Prada, Marfa alongside a highway meant that the likelihood of the piece not being tampered or interfered with were slim. Repeated acts of vandalism and damage, as well as the maintenance of the piece, would be noted when discussing any work of art. These matters are of extreme importance with regard to Prada, Marfa due to the insistence of the artists and organizers to have the work ‘naturally’ decay. These restorations by the artists and organizers contradict previous assertions that time was meant to wreck Prada, Marfa and subsequently

privilege certain types of deterioration, in particular, ‘natural’ over others. The maintenance of the work raises the question of privileging of certain types of damage and possible interference with the piece in relation to not only its environment, but members of the local community.

Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset conceived Prada, Marfa to be a replica Prada store. It is carpeted, air-conditioned, and softy lit. Prada donated shoes and handbags to Prada, Marfa. Viewers who note the detail and length which Elmgreen and Dragset have gone through to make the installation as realistic as possible and analyze the piece in relation to common examples of retail architecture, as well as who have a simple understanding of commerce and trade, must notice one design detail of Prada, Marfa that changes the meaning of the entire work: the lack of a functional door. As I stated, Elmgreen and Dragset have cre-

ated a work of art that is not an actual Prada store, but masquerades as one. Two large window displays and a glass door draw spectators’ attention to shelves of expensive, high-end women’s shoes and handbags. The viewer is tempted to get closer and examine the wares.

However, the prospective shopper is prevented from getting any closer and is forced to contend with one issue, Prada, Marfa is not open and will never be; the doors remain locked and the store sealed. Prada, Marfa does not encourage the consumerism that commerce fundamentally consists of. Retail establishments are designed to attract potential customers to purchase the goods and services provided by said establishment.

Retail organizations serve no other purpose than to sell goods and services. Prada, Marfa does not participate in the retail trade.

Elmgreen and Dragset have permitted tourists and possible consumers to leer and ogle the 44

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

fashionable wares, but they are prohibited from touching the goods, and even more importantly, from purchasing them.

The refusal of Elmgreen and Dragset’s to open Prada, Marfa has rendered every spectator who has visited the site “per3 petual window-shoppers.” The modeling of the piece on the retail architecture of commercially operating Prada stores but refusal to engage in sales and commerce adds a significant layer to the piece’s disjointed placement in Texas, especially in relation to Marfa. The work is present, yet not participatory.

Donald Judd, the Chianti Foundation, and Judd Foundation fortified Marfa’s place in art history long before Elmgreen and Dragset created Prada, Marfa. Prada, Marfa, however, is not located in Marfa but in Valentine, Texas. The question as to why the artists chose to include Marfa in the title, as opposed to Valentine, is answered simply when one thinks of modern-day

Marfa. Filled with boutiques and galleries, Marfa bears a certain weight culturally that Valentine does not. Simply by including Marfa in the installation’s title affords the work an art context and audience.

Valentine, Texas, the actual geographic location of Prada, Marfa may only be twenty-six miles away from Marfa but seems worlds away. Marfa is the arts and cultural ‘mecca’ that draws thousands of visitors every year and home to many professional artists and art enthusiasts. It is the town “transformed 4 and gentrified by art tourism.”

Valentine, on the other hand, has been described by Elmgreen and Dragset as a “bit of a ghost 5 town.” It has not undergone the gentrification and development that Marfa went through with the influx of artists and tourists.

Valentine is still considered an area struggling with unemployment. It seems that an operating Prada store would not be out of place in Marfa.

The decision of Elmgreen and Dragset to never officially com-

SIGN FOR MARFA, TEXAS

ment on the message of Prada, Marfa allows the possibility of a wide array of interpretation. I personally conceived of Prada, Marfa as a commentary of luxury branding and consumer culture, as well as “gentrification 6 and art tourism.” Yet, the unwavering feeling of the possibil46

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

ity of bias is spilled all over their work. Prada’s willing involvement in a project that was essentially deriding the practices of its industry seems somewhat questionable. Subsequently I am posed with a series of questions such as ‘How can Prada, Marfa, challenge and engage critically

with the aforementioned dominant ideologies when said works are produced with the guidance and assistance of the Prada brand, itself a cultural icon of luxury and consumerism ?’ and ‘Could Prada, Marfa be a “subtle 7 marketing ploy” with advertising disguised as art ?’

Prada’s involvement, albeit supporting, in Prada, Marfa did

not tarnish the status of the Prada brand. Instead, Prada’s image in the minds of the consumer actually improved through its association with ‘subversive’ works of art. Prada has gained an artistic identity through its commissioning and collecting of works by “cutting edge artists and ar8 chitects.” Though some would look only at the appropriation of Prada by Elmgreen and Dragset, Prada in reverse has appropriated the ‘cool’ and ‘artsy’ ethos that the artists are imbued with.

Elmgreen and Dragset have vehemently denied that Prada, Marfa was a marketing ploy. They have stated that they knew the most obvious potential sponsor, Prada, would create a “conflict 9 of interest.” Their work proves precisely why contemporary corporate patronage of the arts can prove extremely “problematic for artists wishing to maintain 10 critical distance.”

However, that did not stop the artists from accepting the donation of shoes and six handbags or Prada from allowing Elmgreen and Dragset from using the brand’s logo and

high fashion’s apporpriation of

ARTISTIC COOL PRADA, MARFA

retail architectural designs.

Even if one were to step back from trying to analyze the murkiness of Elmgreen and Dragset’s involvement with Prada, they are faced with a new challenge.

It would seem that for all this discussion of gentrification, elitism, consumerism, and the rise of the luxury brands in society, capitalism and commerce have still triumphed. Elmgreen and Dragset have unintentionally reinforced the capitalist values they originally meant to criticize.

Prada, Marfa ended up attracting more art tourists to Marfa, “thereby intensifying the pro11 cesses of gentrification” and reinforcing the appeal of these glamorized objects.

Elmgreen and Dragset intentionally have never spoken extensively of their personal conceptions of Prada, Marfa. Like most artists, they hoped for their work to speak for itself. Through this paper I have interpreted the installation as a commentary on

everything from the gentrification of public spaces to the inherent elitism of the art world to the rise of the ever-present luxury goods brand. The one issue that I do not believe the artists wished to get involved in was the questioning of their legitimacy as cultural critics due to their close connections with the Prada brand. Yet, I feel that this questioning only added another equally valid layer to the work. I postulate that through their use of various artistic techniques and creative practices such as the location of the piece in Texas to the appropriation of the Prada brand, Elmgreen and Dragset were able to create a work of art that not only engaged with issues of elitism, gentrification, capitalism, and the production of varied intellectual discourses but a work of art so representative of our changing society that it seemed that the longer the piece is in existence, the more meanings and interpretations arise.

NOTES 1» A WINTER’S LANDSCAPE 1. Blankert, Albert, et. al., Frozen Silence: Paintings From Museums And Private Collections, (Amsterdam: K. & V. Waterman B.V., Rokin 116, 1982), 21.

2. “Hendrick Avercamp: The Little Ice Age,” Last modified July 5, 2010, http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2010/avercamp/slideshow/#.

3. Blankert, Albert, et. al., Frozen Silence: Paintings From Museums And Private Collections, 16.

4. Betten, Henk, “The Earliest History of Deaf Education In Europe.”

Last modified February 2010. http://www.eudy.info/sites/default/files/news/2010/8.pdf .

5. Suchtelen, Ariane van. Holland Frozen in Time: The Dutch Winter Landscape in the Golden Age, (Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2002), 58.

6. Blankert, Albert, et. al., Frozen Silence: Paintings From Museums And Private Collections, 17.

7. Ibid, 29.

48

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

8. Ibid, 17.

9. Westermann, Mariet. Sound, Silence and Modernity in Dutch Pictures of Manners. Edinburgh: National Galleries of Scotland and University of Edinburgh, 2007.

10. “Hendrick Avercamp: The Little Ice Age,” Last modified July 5, 2010, http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2010/avercamp/slideshow/#.

11. Ibid.

12. The British Museum, “Skating before the St. Georg’s Gate, Antwerp,” Acessed June 6, 2012, http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_image.aspx.

13. WebMuseum, Paris, “Bruegel, Pieter the Elder,” Last Accessed June 6, 2012, http://www.ibiblio. org/wm/paint/auth/bruegel/.

14. Suchtelen, Ariane van. Holland Frozen in Time: The Dutch Winter Landscape in the Golden Age, 80.

15. Blankert, Albert, et. al., Frozen Silence: Paintings From Museums And Private Collections, 19.

16. Los Angeles County Museum of Art, “Collections,” Accessed May 23, 2012, http:// collectionsonline. lacma.org/mwebcgi/mweb.exe?req uest=record;id=154600;type=101.

2» SIGHT AND REPRESENTATION: A PROCESS FOR VISUAL DISCOVERY IN 17TH CENTURY NETHERLANDS 1. Robert Hooke, Micrographia: Or Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies Made by Magnifying Glasses with Observations and Inquiries Thereupon (London: Jo. Martyn and Ja. Allestry, Printers to the Royal Society, 1664), preface, npag.

2. Katherine S. Van Eerde, Wenceslaus Hollar: Delineator of His Time (Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, Published for the Folger Shakespeare Library, 1970), 33-35.

3. Richard Pennington, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Etched Work of Wenceslaus Hollar 1607-1677 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), xxii.

4. Robert Hooke, Micrographia: Or Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies Made by Magnifying Glasses with Observations and Inquiries Thereupon, preface, npag..

5. Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1984), 91.

6. Anne Thackray, Caterpillars and Cathedrals: The Art of Wenceslaus Hollar (Toronto: Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto, 2010), 42.

7. Ibid., 43.

8. The Age of the Marvelous, ed. Joy Kenseth, (Hanover, New Hampshire: Hood Museum of Art, Dartmouth College, 1991), Introduction, 33.

9. “Guide to the Kunst und Wunderkammer,” in The Age of the Marvelous, ed. Joy Kenseth, n. pag.

10. Anne Thackray, Caterpillars and Cathedrals: The Art of Wenceslaus Hollar, 45.

11. J. A. Worp, Fragment eener Autobiographie van Constantijn Huygens, in Bijdragen en Mededeelingen van het historisch Genootschap (Utrecht: 1897), 120.

Qtd. in Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century, 9.

12. Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century, 98.

13. Robert Hooke, Micrographia: Or Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies Made by Magnifying Glasses with Observations and Inquiries Thereupon,

184.

14. Ibid., preface, npag.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid., 171-172.

17. Ibid., preface, npag.

18. Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century, 73.

19. Ibid., 101.

20. The Age of the Marvelous, ed.

Joy Kenseth, Introduction, 33.

21. Ibid., 49-50 22. Harry Berger, Jr., Caterpillage: Reflections on SeventeenthCentury Dutch Still Life Painting (New York: Fordham University Press, 2011), 79.

23. Joy Kenseth, “Jan Davidsz. De Heem’s Still-life with Grapes,” in Hood Museum Quarterly, (Spring 2006), npag.

24. Ibid.

25. The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. James Spaulding, Robert Leslie Ellis, Douglas Denon Heath, (London: 1857-64), vol. 4, 29. Qtd. in Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century, 103.

26. Svetlana Alpers, The Art of De-

scribing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century, 104.

27. Joy Kenseth, “Jan Davidsz.

De Heem’s Still-life with Grapes,” npag.

28. Simon Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987). Cited in Harry Berger, Jr., Caterpillage, 2.

29. Joy Kenseth, “Jan Davidsz.

De Heem’s Still-life with Grapes,” npag.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century, 101.

33. Robert Hooke, Micrographia: Or Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies Made by Magnifying Glasses with Observations and Inquiries Thereupon, preface, npag.

3» THE ARTISTIC INFLUENCE OF ELEANORA DI TOLEDO 1. Cynthia Lawrence, “Introduction,” in Women and Art in Early Modern Europe: Patrons, Collec-

tors, and Connoisseurs, ed. Cynthia M. Lawrence. (Penn State UP, 1997), 10.

2. Konrad Eisenbichler, Konrad, “Introduction,” in The Cultural World of Eleanora Di Toledo, Duchess of Florence and Siena.

(Burlington: Ashgate, 2004), 1-5.

3. Eisenbichler, “Introduction,” 4.

4. Eisenbichler, “Introduction,” 4-5.

5. Ilaria Hoppe, “A Duchess’ Place at Court: The Quartiere Di Eleonora in the Palazzo Della Signoria in Florence,” in The Cultural World of Eleanora Di Toledo, Duchess of Florence and Siena, ed. Konrad Eisenbichler. (Burlington: Ashgate, 2004), 98-114.

6. Hoppe, “A Duchess’ Place at Court,” 99-102.

7. Janet Cox-Rearick, Bronzino’s Chapel of Eleonora in the Palazzo Vecchio (Berkeley: University of California, 1993), 59.

8. Eisenbichler, “Introduction,” 4.

9. Bruce L. Edelstein, “Bronzino in the Service of Eleonora Di Toledo and Cosimo I De’ Medici: Conjugal Patronage and the Painter-Courtier,” in Beyond Isabella: Secular

50

» north w est er n a rt r ev iew

north w est er na rtr ev iew. org

Women Patrons of Art in Renaissance Italy, ed. Sheryl E. Reiss and David G. Wilkins. (Kirksvill: Truman State UP, 2001), 225-37.

10. Edelstein, “Bronzino,” 236.

11. Hoppe, “A Duchess’ Place at Court,” 103.

12. Cox-Rearick, Bronzino’s Chapel, 19.

13. “The Sabine Women - JacquesLouis David,” Boston College. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.bc.edu/ bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/art/ neocl_dav_rape.html>.

14. Giovanni Stradano and Giorgio Vasari. The Sabine Women Make Peace between Their Roman Husbands and Their Sabine Relatives.

1559-1564. Oil on canvas.

15. “Book of Esther (Old Testament) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia,” Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/193471/ Book-of-Esther>.

16. Giovanni Stradano and Giorgio Vasari. Esther and Ahasuerus.

1559-1564.

17. Giovanni Stradano and Giorgio Vasari. Penelope at the Loom with

her Handmaids. 1559-1564.

18. “Penelope (Greek Mythology) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia.” Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/449763/Penelope>.

19. Rose Marie San Juan, “The Court Lady’s Dilemma: Isabella D’Este and Art Collecting in the Renaissance,” in Oxford Art Journal 14.1 (1991): 69. JSTOR. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.

20. Giovanni Stradano and Giorgio Vasari. Gualdrada, a Florentine Maiden, Refuses to Kiss Emperor Otto IV. 1559-1564.

21. Hoppe, “A Duchess’ Place at Court,” 112.

22. Edelstein, “Bronzino,” 225.

23. Gabrielle Langdon, “A ‘Laura’ for Cosimo: Bronzino’s Eleonora Di Toledo with Her Son Giovanni,” in The Cultural World of Eleanora Di Toledo, Duchess of Florence and Siena, ed. Konrad Eisenbichler.

(Burlington: Ashgate, 2004), 41-55.

24. Agnolo Bonzino. Portrait of Eleonora Di Toledo with Her Son Giovanni. 1545.

25. Edelstein, “Bronzino,” 228.

26. Edelstein, “Bronzino,” 225.

27. Edelstein, “Bronzino,” 229.

28. Edelstein, “Bronzino,” 229.

29. Edelstein, “Bronzino,” 226.

30. Eisenbichler, “Introduction,” 1.

31. Michael Levey, Florence a Portrait (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1996).

32. “Bartolommeo Ammannati (Italian Sculptor and Architect) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia,” Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. 10 Nov. 2011. <http://www. britannica.com/EBchecked/ topic/20903/BartolommeoAmmannati?anchor=ref229814>.

33. Richard Ingersoll, “100 Cities: Italian Urbanism” (lecture).

3. Jim Hedges, “Artworld Gift Guide for the Holidays,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-hedges/artworldgift-guide-for-t_b_796613.html (accessed 1 Feb. 2012).

4. Nicky Ryan, “From New York to the Congo via: Branded Occupation”(paper presented at OCCUPATION: Negotiations with Constructed Space, Brighton University, 2nd-4th July (2009): 5 5. Virginia Nostrand Lee, “Sculpture,” Commissions 25. No. 2 (2006) 22.

6. Ryan, “From New York to the Congo via: Branded Occupation,” 4.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

4» HIGH FASHION’S APPROPRIATION OF ARTISTIC COOL: PRADA, MARFA 1. Michael Gracyzk, “Desert, cows and designer shoes,” Los Angeles Times, 20 Feb. 2006, Entertainment.

2. Michael Gracyzk, “Vandals Target Quirky Artsy West Texas Prada Marfa”, The Washington Times 25 Mar. 2011.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Ryan, “From New York to the Congo via: Branded Occupation,” 6.

FROM THE PRESIDENT Having participated in Northwestern Art Review’s journal process since its fourth iteration, the procedure of soliciting, selecting, and editing submissions indeed qualifies as a familiar practice. The journal’s ninth title Reexamining the Familiar, in addition to the fact that it is my fifth and final partaking in its production, has inspired a reexamination of our habitual, biannual journal process.

In revisiting old issues and reassessing this current one, it is easy to identify the familiar aspects carried through each edition: NAR’s journal retains many levels of familiarity—the page layout, the fonts, the frame of content, and even the mission statement remain consistent and nearly unchanging. However, I find these familiar features are not redundant, but important: They provide a sense of continuity, professionalism, and evidence of establishment for both our academic journal and our organization at large. After all, it is the journal itself that merited the group’s initial purpose as well as foundation.

In reexamining the overarching familiar that is NAR’s cornerstone publication, I have gained encompassing insight into how this issue truly reflects the growth and progress made by the Northwestern Art Review over the past few years. Most apparent are the changes in our staff listing—NAR has grown in size from twelve

to eighteen members, and each member of our brilliant editorial staff takes on not only the daunting responsibility of producing a journal but also another full-time position as web blogger, events staff, or featured artist editor. From my privileged inside perspective, I have witnessed the editorial process brilliantly tightened, revamped, and professionalized by our outstanding Editor-in-Chief, Marni Barta, as well as the entire laying-out of our journal being brought in-house, as this issue was carried out by our talented publisher, Erin Kim. I am especially grateful for the exceptional progress and product produced under the leadership of Marni and Erin, and I also extend a sincere thanks to our entire staff for their exhibited diligence, thoughtfulness, and commitment in the production of NAR 9.

Reexamining the journal from a wider perspective, credit is due to both Northwestern’s Department of Art History and Department of Art Theory & Practice for their unwavering support and inspiration. It is from these departments that we receive our sponsorship and official advising; working with Professor Lane Relyea of Art Theory & Practice as well as Professor Jesús Escobar of the Department of Art History continues to be a privilege and pleasure for our group. On behalf of the entire Northwestern Art Review, I thank you both for your exemplary leadership, encouragement, and advice. Additionally, reader, I thank you for your

engagement in and support of NARâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;I hope that this ninth journal offers you an enjoyable reading experience, whether its form and content provides a familiar or entirely new encounter.

MADDIE AMOS DECEMBER 2012 EVANSTON, IL

»

NORTHWESTERN / ART / REVIEW