Stories of Art History

Sugar Box, John Coney, Silver, about 1680 - 85

Luncheon of the Boating Party, Pierre Auguste Renoir, o/c, 1880-81

ABOUT THE IMAGE: This spectacular painting by Renoir is a combination of still life, landscape, and figure drawing. Depicting a patron, the artists’ wife, art historians, artists, and actors, Renoir manages to create a scene of people both interacting with one another and the viewer at once. 

There are two things that make this painting particularly fascinating. The first is the power of interaction (and lack thereof). Renoir paints this grouping in two different pairs. The first that the viewer notices is the larger cluster of people that all seem to be in the throngs of conversation and drinking. By just looking at the canvas you can hear the clinking of glasses, the pouring of wine, and the fabric of the mans jacket as he brushes against the women next to him as he leans over to talk. This isn’t a quiet area, and we know this from the women in the upper right hand corner that has her hands placed over her ears. This is a group of a rambunctious sort. The kind that I would love to have brunch with on a sunny New York weekend. The second group only consist of two people that aren’t even interacting with each other. The woman is positively possessed by the small dog in her hands, and the man seems more interested in the larger crowd that has stolen his attention. 

The second fascinating thing about this painting are the quick brushstrokes and dashes of color that make the cutlery filling the table and complete the background. I would argue that Renoir used quick painting to make the things that he considered unimportant more obscure, while the portraits were painted more deliberately. There is a particular group of glasses and a cluster of grapes in the very front of the canvas that seem to be left incomplete, but done so because Renoir knew the audience would recognize these things from everyday life. It is this dependence on recognition that Renoir uses in combination with the fluidity of brushstroke and flickering light that make this painting an Impressionist masterpiece.

TELL ME MORE: For more information about the portraits included in this painting click here! 

John Smibert, The Bermuda Group, 1728-1739, o/c

Gilbert Stuart, James Madison, ca. 1805-07, o/c

Thomas Eakins, The Gross Clinic, 1875, o/c ABOUT THE IMAGE: If I were to catagorize this painting I would typifiy it as hyper-realism because of the subject matter and content. What Eakins paints is a surgery being performed in an surgerical theatre, documenting the history of medicine. My favorite thing about this painting is the dual meaning that comes from its name. Gross is actually the name of the doctor that is performing the surgery, which is treating the wound rather than performing an amputation (which is how the patient would have been treated if it were not for modern medicine). The word Gross is also referring to the subject matter that was in fact gross. This is evident because with the absence of the medical subject, what Eakins presents is a mild horror film of a man being tortured on a table, with blood spewing from his leg and covering the hands of the men picking over him. Beyond that, the woman sitting behind Dr. Gross cannot even look at what is taking place in front of her, taking to cover her eyes and cower. However, that could easily be protrayed as Eakins being sexist and saying that women couldn’t handle the subject matter. This painting was submitted to the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia but was rejected because although it was fascinating, it was horrible.

The Nightmare, John Henry Fuseli, 1781, o/c ABOUT THE IMAGE: In The Nightmare the viewer is shown a subject sleeping and the nightmare conflicting her. The woman is fast asleep, but we can tell from her position that this is not peaceful rest. Her arms and head are flung about, hanging off of the bed she lies on, while her legs are tangled in the dress she wears. Her eyes although closed, don’t show any source of strain or indication that she is having a nightmare. If this was just a painting of her face, we would think that she was having peaceful sleep. But we know she isn’t as the source of her nightmare sits on her chest and gazes at the viewer. The figure sitting on her chest is the personification of what nightmares were thought to be from a Scandinavian myth of a figure that sat on the chest of sleepers suffocating them while they laid in torment. The early meaning of nightmares was associated with there being a heavy weight on one’s chest and that is exactly what we see depicted in this painting. Although small, the nightmare carries a very heavy appearance, looking like he is made of stone.  This however is only one theory about this painting. The second and far more interesting is that this was a painting that depicted the one-sided love affair Fuseli had with a woman named Anna Landolt. There are letters that he wrote to a friend talking of the erotic dreams he had of her saying, “Last night I had her in bed with me— tossed my bedclothes hugger-mugger— wound my hot and tight-clasped hands about her— fused her body and soul together with my own— poured into her my spirit, breath and strength. Anyone who touches her now commits adultery and incest! She is mine, and I am hers. And have her I will.” 

Mel Bochner, Strong Language Series at The Jewish Museum (through October 19)

ABOUT THE EXHIBITION: Mel Bochner does a beautiful job of playing with words and language. The first thing you see as you walk in is his self portrait (last picture) which I believe is the most brilliant take on self portrait there ever was [and this is coming from someone whom believes that Alice Neel is the queen of portraits]. To use one word to describe this exhibit is fierce. Bochner uses the fiercest language he can think of, but it's towards the end of the pictures. Every painting starts off with soft language then becomes, as titled, strong. The colors are harsh, hard [and yes strong] as they collide against one another. 

Zurbaran, Still Life With Lemons, Oranges, and a Rose, 1633, o/c ABOUT THE IMAGE: Dr. Roger Crum (University of Dayton, Italian Renaissance and Baroque Art) calls this "one of the most famous still lives in the world", and though I believe that mostly everything that comes from this mans mouth is gold, that quote could be argued against. However there are several things that stand strong about this particular still life, one being that this painting is unbelievably balanced. It is so symmetrical, the table surface lying parallel to the picture plane; yet simple and plain (which is a testament to the artist preference to the plain). The background is dark, but there is that Baroque light shining on the plates. The fruit isn't rotten like in Caravaggio's still life, but is ripe and ready to be eaten. 

DID YOU KNOW: These three objects are in relation to the Holy Trinity? The lemons and oranges are fruits of paradise, water is the sacrament of Baptism, and the rose is the Virgin Mary.

Sally Mann, Emmett, Jesse, and Virginia, 1989 ABOUT THE ARTIST/IMAGE: Sally Mann is an American photographer whom at the beginning of her career took black and white images of her children. This photo was taken in her series called Immediate Family and caused quite the controversy. The issue, which can be seen quite clearly was that naked children were being photographed and displayed. Some viewed it as child porn (yes, you read right). But these images are too intense and defiant in my eyes to be viewed as pornographic images. There is almost a performance to this picture as you look at the way the children are positioned, the way they over play their attitude. The rest of the series (which is not a waste of time to research) was taken at their family cabin and cover many childhood adventures and playtime.

Mary Cassatt, Little Girl in a Blue Armchair, 1878, o/c

ABOUT THE IMAGE: Cassatt captures a moment that is all to frequent in the lives of children, restlessness. I don't know how long this little girl sat for this painting, but as a viewer you can feel her own anxiousness creep into your bones. Though her attitude isn't to be desired, this little girl is dressed in her Sunday's best, and we can tell from her clothing-- and the fact that she has a dog-- what her social standing is (although Mary Cassatt's social standing gives away the standing in those she paints). There is something that is far important about this image than the social standings and restlessness of a child. It is Edgar Degas' strong influence is on Cassatt that we can see from this image. It was through Degas that she began looking at Japanese prints and patterns. This study of pattern is seen in the blue armchairs and the flatness of the gray that they are placed against. Though while influenced by Japanese art, we still see the brushwork of the French Impressionist.

Frida Kahlo, Two Fridas, 1939, o/c

ABOUT THE ARTIST: Frida Kahlo was a Mexican painter whom is most known for painting in the surrealist style. I would rather recognize her for her brilliant self-portraits. Her paintings depict pain, both physical and emotional, which I think is the key to her brilliance for she was not only painting what knew, but experienced. At the age of six she had polio and in 1922 she was involved in a terrible bus accident which left her leg deformed. As for emotional pain, her husband Diego Rivera, the famous mural painter, was a rolling stone.

ABOUT THE IMAGE: In this image we see two Frida's sitting side by side. One of the Frida's is dressed in traditional Mexican clothing, while the other is seen in European clothing (Kahlo's father was born in Germany). Professor Jeanne Philipp (University of Dayton, Feminism and Art) said that this could be a reference to her being torn between her two cultural heritages and influences. I think that it is simply a reference to both of her backgrounds, as the string that comes from both Frida's hearts are connected as one. Others say that this painting is not about a battle between her cultural backgrounds, but an expression of Frida's hurt since during the time in which this was painted she was divorcing her husband. The Frida on the left then represents the brokenhearted women (her heart has literally been obliterated) and the Frida on the right (with the whole heart) still loves Rivera (and is holding a small picture of him).

TELL ME MORE: smarthistory

Edward Hopper, Nighthawks,1942, o/c

ABOUT THE IMAGE: In honor of Valentine's Day, I present to you a picture of the founding members of The Lonely Hearts Club. In this image we see three patrons inside a diner, all disconnected. There is the obvious man sitting alone across from what looks to be a couple, but even they aren't giving one another attention. Their hands look to be touching, but she seems more interested in the sandwich in her hands. The employee doesn't even pay attention to them as he leans over. It is said that Hopper was out of sync with the spirit of America, and he painted loneliness in the midst of the hoopla of America. However, now is not the time to start pitying these people (or even Hopper himself), because you are the unseen fifth person in the image, standing on the outside looking in. Who's in The Lonely Hearts Club now?

Romaine Brooks, Self Portrait, 1923, o/c

ABOUT THE ARTIST/IMAGE:  Let me first begin by saying that this is one of my favorite self-portraits done by an artist. Brooks paints herself in masculine clothing showing a very androgynous portrayal of herself, and it is done well. Her back is straight, hat pulled down low, and her gaze is hidden but she demands the attention of the viewer. She uses a grey and black color pallette suggesting that she is hiding something beneath the shadows that she clings too. You must admit that she looks rather stylish, and that though this look was not something a woman usually wore in the early twentieth century, today women dressed in traditional menswear is something to be admired.

Francisco Goya, Charles IV of Spain with his Family, 1800, o/c

ABOUT THE IMAGE: There's nothing I love more than an awkward family photo, and this is exactly what Goya paints. Beneath the beauty of this royal families jewels and garments are the most uncomfortable people that I have ever laid eyes on. But they look so damn beautiful. Looking at their clothing and jewels it seems as if they are glowing, but then you look at their faces and you see vacant eyes and pursed lips (for a closer look click here). It is said that Goya did preliminary drawings and presented them to them and they approved. This gives me two ideas; the first is that they really didn't care what people thought about how they looked, they were royals. The second is that they wanted this new and refreshing candid look to royal portraiture.

SONG: Royals (Lorde)

Diane Arbus, Teenage Couple on Hudson Street, N.Y.C, 1963, gelatin silver print

ABOUT THE IMAGE: Playing dress up? Yes and No. This teenage couple stands holding hands clad in their parents clothing. The clothing is all but swallowing them making them looking even younger than they already appear. It seems that the teens are trying to project themselves to look older than they are, but Arbus uses foreshortening and by doing this she makes their head larger than their bodies, which in turns has the viewer further scrutinize them. 

ABOUT THE ARTIST: Diane Arbus took most of her pictures of people in pairs. In these pairs there would be "the typical person" and the "A type person" (or blatantly the normal person and the freak). However, these types won't be as you expect them, she wants you to look for these two types of persons in her work. Some said that her work was exploitative (in reference to her series in a mental institution), even though Arbus established relationships with her subjects before she photographed them. 

FROM THE MOUTH: "I always thought of photography as a naughty thing to do- that was one of my favorite things about it, and when I first did it, I felt very perverse."