- That there was a big difference between Northern and Southern Renaissance artists. The latter took the Classical ideal of beauty and weren't particularly interested in painting things as they were. The Northerners (mostly Germanic) were really interested in gritty realism (the pain of the thorns in Jesus' side; his lips turning blue). But didn't really care for working out perspective.
- That Michelangelo considered himself more a sculpture than a painter and didn't actually want to paint the Sistine Chapel.
- That David is huge (although not in all areas) and that the piece of marble he's sculpted from had a fault running through it, and many other sculptures said he couldn't be done.
- That you have to look really hard to appreciate the beauty of his pose. At first he just looks like a young man holding something on his shoulder. But if you look closer you see the 'come on then' subtlety of his expression, the sling on his shoulder, the rock in his hand.
- Also, if you again take the time to really look at Pieta, you see the difference in size between Mary and Jesus and that this is deliberate. It would be impossible to fit a grown man on his mothers lap (and look ridiculous) but in shrinking his size, Michelangelo is showing the everlasting bond between mother and child.
- That part of the provenance making the Mona Lisa so valuable is that Italian Extremists stole her and there was a massive outcry.
- And also that no eyebrows and an exposed forehead (as with her) were signs of real beauty at the time (women would often pluck their hair to make their hairline higher)
- That a hand raised with three fingers says: 'I'm talking' and that often there would be an inscription of the commentary below
- That Holbein's 'The Ambassadors' was an incredibly brave painting, given that it was commissioned by Henry VIII. It contained lots of direct criticism of what he was doing: a broken string on a lute to represent disharmony; a skull (only seen from the side)
- That Da Vinci did mirror writing in his sketchbooks, perhaps so people couldn't easily steal his ideas
- That 'The Dead Scrolls' apparently have a scroll written by Mary (mother of Jesus) explaining the issue of the Virgin Birth - and that she wasn't indeed a virgin. Although this is hotly contested by many within Christianity. As an agnostic, whilst I find it quite fascinating, it doesn't matter to me personally. However, even just Googling the subject did actually make me feel quite uncomfortable as it's obviously of such importance to so many.
- That Turner was a bit of a naughty man, and liked to sketch/paint (?) pornography as well as well as Fighting Temeraires.
Two Thoughts Arising From the Lesson
I'm really enjoying the Art History lectures as it's long been something I've been fascinated in. However, an interesting point came up yesterday that reminded me of my time at University.
I studied English and Media Studies and, it really struck me at the time that every single topic was studied, it seemed, through the lenses of two very distinct models: either Feminism or Psychoanalysis.
Feminism I didn't mind so much. Goodness knows, it's good to get a female-centered perspective on things in such a still male-cenric world.
However, pyschoanalysis did bother me quite a lot. My favourite sentence I took from my degree was: 'In the Wicked Lady, Margaret Atwood's hair is coiffured to represent the female labia'.
Disngenious perhaps, but this, to me came to represent the fundamental issue with psychoanalysis. Surely that's just one person's opinion, influenced by their own past (maybe they had a strange encounter with a labia once) and how can they begin to explain what was in the mind of either the hairdresser, director or designer.
I think that if everything was pre-fixed with, 'it could be that...' or 'I think that....' it would be ok. What got me was the absolute, 'This is what it means. The person creating the thing didn't realise it. But I, with my greater knowledge of that person, given to me by my psychoanalytic insight, know it absolutely.'
Another of my favourite comments in counter-balanc to this was made by Madonna. She said, with her usual frankness, something along the lines of: 'people are always analysing what my videos mean, and 9 times out of 10 its absolute bollocks'. And there's a woman who's surely not shy of inserting a bit of symbolism along the way.
This came up in the lesson, when another student commented on 'how could the scholars be sure that a broken lute string represented disharmony?' And I'm so glad it did. For I think that students should never be discouraged from questioning absolutes and always be aware that everything is relative to each person's interpretation, and rarely is anyone infallible. (But scholars earn their livings through being scholarly, so always have to sound like they believe they're correct).
Turner and Pornography
The second thought evolved after the lesson had ended (just in case anyone thinks that Strode discuss pornography in tutorials!) I was asking something about Turner, and Chris said that some Turners had been said not to be his, but were later then proven to be. Oh yes, I remember now, this was in relation to scholars not always being correct.
Apparently the reason was because his sketchbooks (linked to the paintings) had been found to contain pornographic sketches. (Although, interestingly, whilst you can find a plethora of the images of the Royal Family naked on the net, you can't find any of these examples!)
Then poor Chris had to suffer me querying, 'Well what do you mean by pornorgraphy exactly.' Apparently Tracey Emin isn't porn (although often very graphic and confrontational), but Robert Mappleforth is. I can see that. But it did lead me to question where art stops and pornography begins. Is it the depiction of the act of fornification (or anything connected) that makes it porn? And if so, why? Is it because it's deemed by society to be an entirely private thing. Or, is it the intent with which it was produced? Eg, if it's produced to titillate then it's porn. But if it's produced to raise questions, make a social commentary, then it's not.
If it's about things that should be kept private, then isn't Tracey Emin's 'Unmade Bed' slightly pornagraphic in its explicitness depicting the grime of her private existence? (Obviously it's not porn, there is no human form involved, but it's an interesting question).
Anyway, there you go. A few thoughts for a Friday afternoon. Off to photography now. Oh, and I found my brolly and bracelet. Happy days.
