Datasets:

naist-nlp

/

ExpArt

like 3

Follow

NAIST NLP 19

0951_T

Halo (sculpture)

In the context of Halo (sculpture), discuss the Concept of the Design.

Halo draws inspiration from the site's rich brewery heritage. The sculptural form of Halo is a reference to the enormous circular brewing-vat support found in the decommissioned Brewery Yard building, while the off-centered encircling motion of the ring is the re-imagination of stirrings of brewing alchemy and the tipsy effects of alcohol.The minimalist design, together with its wind driven motion, are intended to provide a calm setting against the hectic activity of the highly urbanised environment, exemplifying Turpin + Crawford Studio's philosophy to create works which are "collaborations with nature".

0951_NT

Halo (sculpture)

In the context of this artwork, discuss the Concept of the Design.

Halo draws inspiration from the site's rich brewery heritage. The sculptural form of Halo is a reference to the enormous circular brewing-vat support found in the decommissioned Brewery Yard building, while the off-centered encircling motion of the ring is the re-imagination of stirrings of brewing alchemy and the tipsy effects of alcohol.The minimalist design, together with its wind driven motion, are intended to provide a calm setting against the hectic activity of the highly urbanised environment, exemplifying Turpin + Crawford Studio's philosophy to create works which are "collaborations with nature".

0952_T

Halo (sculpture)

In Halo (sculpture), how is the Engineering of the Design elucidated?

The components were made of carbon fibre joined together by stainless-steel connections. As the ring's turning speed and tilting angle are dependent on wind force, detailed finite element analysis and wind tunnel tests were carried out to enable the minimum use of materials and fixtures to provide a stiff and stable structure in real wind conditions.Mechanical engineer, Arran Gordon of Partridge, designed a bearing unit that uses a 12mm diameter partially stabilised zirconia ceramic ball to deliver an almost frictionless encircling motion while balancing the entire weight of the ring and arm, allowing the sculpture to pick up and create swaying momentum in winds as low as 2 km/h. The unit has a capacity designed for extreme weather conditions, with brakes in place to absorb and dampen the motion at higher revolutions and degrees of pitch.

0952_NT

Halo (sculpture)

In this artwork, how is the Engineering of the Design elucidated?

The components were made of carbon fibre joined together by stainless-steel connections. As the ring's turning speed and tilting angle are dependent on wind force, detailed finite element analysis and wind tunnel tests were carried out to enable the minimum use of materials and fixtures to provide a stiff and stable structure in real wind conditions.Mechanical engineer, Arran Gordon of Partridge, designed a bearing unit that uses a 12mm diameter partially stabilised zirconia ceramic ball to deliver an almost frictionless encircling motion while balancing the entire weight of the ring and arm, allowing the sculpture to pick up and create swaying momentum in winds as low as 2 km/h. The unit has a capacity designed for extreme weather conditions, with brakes in place to absorb and dampen the motion at higher revolutions and degrees of pitch.

0953_T

Halo (sculpture)

In the context of Halo (sculpture), analyze the Finishes of the Design.

Reflective pearlised glaze has been applied to the components of the sculpture to give a glistening glow of its surfaces after extensive research and testing with a specialist colour consultant.

0953_NT

Halo (sculpture)

In the context of this artwork, analyze the Finishes of the Design.

Reflective pearlised glaze has been applied to the components of the sculpture to give a glistening glow of its surfaces after extensive research and testing with a specialist colour consultant.

0954_T

Halo (sculpture)

In Halo (sculpture), how is the Construction discussed?

The carbon fibre ring and arm were fabricated and painted at a boat building yard in Nowra. Full scale assembly and wind tests were also conducted at the yard before being disassembled for easy transportation.The three separated pieces of the ring were then reassembled and connected to the arm and bearing assembly. Finally, the assembled parts were lifted onto its mast.After three years in research, design and construction since its original conception, Halo was finally completed in July 2012 and was formally opened on 19 August 2012. The cost for the sculpture was $1.3 million and was funded by the developers of Central Park, Frasers Property Australia and Sekisui House Australia, in collaboration with the City of Sydney.

0954_NT

Halo (sculpture)

In this artwork, how is the Construction discussed?

The carbon fibre ring and arm were fabricated and painted at a boat building yard in Nowra. Full scale assembly and wind tests were also conducted at the yard before being disassembled for easy transportation.The three separated pieces of the ring were then reassembled and connected to the arm and bearing assembly. Finally, the assembled parts were lifted onto its mast.After three years in research, design and construction since its original conception, Halo was finally completed in July 2012 and was formally opened on 19 August 2012. The cost for the sculpture was $1.3 million and was funded by the developers of Central Park, Frasers Property Australia and Sekisui House Australia, in collaboration with the City of Sydney.

0955_T

Halo (sculpture)

Focus on Halo (sculpture) and explore the Awards.

The Institution of Engineers Australia recognized Halo and Partridge with the President's Award at the 2012 Engineering Excellence Awards Sydney for their innovative techniques in management, design and fabrication.

0955_NT

Halo (sculpture)

Focus on this artwork and explore the Awards.

The Institution of Engineers Australia recognized Halo and Partridge with the President's Award at the 2012 Engineering Excellence Awards Sydney for their innovative techniques in management, design and fabrication.

0956_T

Down on His Luck

Focus on Down on His Luck and explain the abstract.

Down on His Luck is an 1889 painting by the Australian artist Frederick McCubbin. It depicts a disheartened swagman, sitting by a campfire in the bush and sadly brooding over his misfortune. According to an 1889 review, "The face tells of hardships, keen and blighting in their influence, but there is a nonchalant and slightly cynical expression, which proclaims the absence of all self-pity ... McCubbin's picture is thoroughly Australian in spirit." The surrounding bush is painted in subdued tones, reflecting his somber and contemplative mood.The artist's model was Louis Abrahams, a friend and successful tobacconist in Melbourne who earlier supplied the cigar box lids for the famous 9 by 5 Impression Exhibition. The scene was staged near the Box Hill artists' camp outside Melbourne, but it is thought that McCubbin would have made additional studies of Abrahams under studio conditions.The painting was owned by William Fergusson until it was purchased in 1896 by the Art Gallery of Western Australia in Perth.On 19 January 2023, the painting was defaced by activists who painted a Woodside Petroleum logo on the Perspex case in which the painting was hung at the Art Gallery of Western Australia. The act was in protest to what they claimed to be the imminent destruction of sacred indigenous rock art sites by Woodside's operations in the Burrup Peninsula in Western Australia. The painting was undamaged.

0956_NT

Down on His Luck

Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract.

Down on His Luck is an 1889 painting by the Australian artist Frederick McCubbin. It depicts a disheartened swagman, sitting by a campfire in the bush and sadly brooding over his misfortune. According to an 1889 review, "The face tells of hardships, keen and blighting in their influence, but there is a nonchalant and slightly cynical expression, which proclaims the absence of all self-pity ... McCubbin's picture is thoroughly Australian in spirit." The surrounding bush is painted in subdued tones, reflecting his somber and contemplative mood.The artist's model was Louis Abrahams, a friend and successful tobacconist in Melbourne who earlier supplied the cigar box lids for the famous 9 by 5 Impression Exhibition. The scene was staged near the Box Hill artists' camp outside Melbourne, but it is thought that McCubbin would have made additional studies of Abrahams under studio conditions.The painting was owned by William Fergusson until it was purchased in 1896 by the Art Gallery of Western Australia in Perth.On 19 January 2023, the painting was defaced by activists who painted a Woodside Petroleum logo on the Perspex case in which the painting was hung at the Art Gallery of Western Australia. The act was in protest to what they claimed to be the imminent destruction of sacred indigenous rock art sites by Woodside's operations in the Burrup Peninsula in Western Australia. The painting was undamaged.

0957_T

Bridal Procession on the Hardangerfjord

Explore the abstract of this artwork, Bridal Procession on the Hardangerfjord.

Bridal Procession on the Hardanger (Norwegian: Brudeferd i Hardanger) is an 1848 oil painting by Hans Gude and Adolph Tidemand. Gude, aged just 23, painted the landscapes and Tidemand, a decade his senior, the bridal party. Each of the Norwegian artists had studied at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf before they first met in Hardanger in 1843, and the painting was made in the winter of 1847–1848 in Düsseldorf. It measures 93 cm × 130 cm (37 in × 51 in) and has been held by the National Gallery in Oslo since 1895. It is one of the best known Norwegian paintings, and is considered to be an excellent example of romantic nationalism in Norway, combining a romanticised landscape with traditions of Norwegian life.The painting depicts a bridal procession, crossing a fjord in rowing boats after the wedding. The first boat carries the groom, tipping his hat, and the bride, in her bridal crown and traditional red costume of the Hardanger region. They are accompanied by some wedding guests: one person is pouring a drink from a jug, a musician is playing a fiddle, and a man is standing to fire a gun in celebration. The boat crew are dressed in typical Bunad costumes. In the distance are two other boats conveying wedding guests, while more people wait on the shoreline, and others wave from a promontory. In the background is a stave church, under a blue summer sky with bright sunlight catching small clouds and snow on the mountains and a glacier. While the scenery resembles Hardangerfjord and the Folgefonna glacier, Gude later wrote that it was not a view of a particular location, but rather was a composite made from his observations.The painting was commissioned as the backdrop for a tableau vivant. The soirée at the Christiania Theatre in March 1849 included a theatrical group dressed in traditional costumes aboard a boat who performed a song "Brudefærden" ("The Wedding Procession") by Andreas Munch with music by Halfdan Kjerulf, with the painting itself serving as scenery.Gude and Tidemand collaborated on other paintings, including at least five versions of the Hardanger bridal procession made around 1850, each with differences. The prime version of 1848 was bought by the National Gallery in Oslo in 1895. A second version of 1848 includes Ole Bull as the violinist: he had performed at the Christiania Theatre. Three versions were painted in 1853, of which one was sold at Grev Wedels Plass Auksjoner in 2002 for NOK 5.1 million.Parallels have been drawn between these paintings by Gude and Tidemand, and the first version of Washington Crossing the Delaware made by fellow Düsseldorf artist Emanuel Leutze from 1848 to 1850. The first version of Leutze's painting was destroyed in Germany during the Second World War, but two later versions survived in the US.

0957_NT

Bridal Procession on the Hardangerfjord

Explore the abstract of this artwork.

Bridal Procession on the Hardanger (Norwegian: Brudeferd i Hardanger) is an 1848 oil painting by Hans Gude and Adolph Tidemand. Gude, aged just 23, painted the landscapes and Tidemand, a decade his senior, the bridal party. Each of the Norwegian artists had studied at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf before they first met in Hardanger in 1843, and the painting was made in the winter of 1847–1848 in Düsseldorf. It measures 93 cm × 130 cm (37 in × 51 in) and has been held by the National Gallery in Oslo since 1895. It is one of the best known Norwegian paintings, and is considered to be an excellent example of romantic nationalism in Norway, combining a romanticised landscape with traditions of Norwegian life.The painting depicts a bridal procession, crossing a fjord in rowing boats after the wedding. The first boat carries the groom, tipping his hat, and the bride, in her bridal crown and traditional red costume of the Hardanger region. They are accompanied by some wedding guests: one person is pouring a drink from a jug, a musician is playing a fiddle, and a man is standing to fire a gun in celebration. The boat crew are dressed in typical Bunad costumes. In the distance are two other boats conveying wedding guests, while more people wait on the shoreline, and others wave from a promontory. In the background is a stave church, under a blue summer sky with bright sunlight catching small clouds and snow on the mountains and a glacier. While the scenery resembles Hardangerfjord and the Folgefonna glacier, Gude later wrote that it was not a view of a particular location, but rather was a composite made from his observations.The painting was commissioned as the backdrop for a tableau vivant. The soirée at the Christiania Theatre in March 1849 included a theatrical group dressed in traditional costumes aboard a boat who performed a song "Brudefærden" ("The Wedding Procession") by Andreas Munch with music by Halfdan Kjerulf, with the painting itself serving as scenery.Gude and Tidemand collaborated on other paintings, including at least five versions of the Hardanger bridal procession made around 1850, each with differences. The prime version of 1848 was bought by the National Gallery in Oslo in 1895. A second version of 1848 includes Ole Bull as the violinist: he had performed at the Christiania Theatre. Three versions were painted in 1853, of which one was sold at Grev Wedels Plass Auksjoner in 2002 for NOK 5.1 million.Parallels have been drawn between these paintings by Gude and Tidemand, and the first version of Washington Crossing the Delaware made by fellow Düsseldorf artist Emanuel Leutze from 1848 to 1850. The first version of Leutze's painting was destroyed in Germany during the Second World War, but two later versions survived in the US.

0958_T

Triumph of Bacchus (Wautier)

Focus on Triumph of Bacchus (Wautier) and discuss the abstract.

The Triumph of Bacchus is a painting by the Walloon artist Michaelina Wautier. It was painted between 1650 and 1656 and is one of Wautier's greatest works, as well as her largest. Based on classical texts, the picture shows a procession with the drunken god Bacchus at its centre, surrounded by other humans, satyrs, and animals. It is notable for its large number of nude male figures, something uncommon from a woman artist in this period.It was possibly commissioned to be part of the large collection of art amassed by Archduke Leopold Willhelm; in any case by 1659 it was noted in an inventory of the collection.It now hangs in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

0958_NT

Triumph of Bacchus (Wautier)

Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract.

The Triumph of Bacchus is a painting by the Walloon artist Michaelina Wautier. It was painted between 1650 and 1656 and is one of Wautier's greatest works, as well as her largest. Based on classical texts, the picture shows a procession with the drunken god Bacchus at its centre, surrounded by other humans, satyrs, and animals. It is notable for its large number of nude male figures, something uncommon from a woman artist in this period.It was possibly commissioned to be part of the large collection of art amassed by Archduke Leopold Willhelm; in any case by 1659 it was noted in an inventory of the collection.It now hangs in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

0959_T

Triumph of Bacchus (Wautier)

In the context of Triumph of Bacchus (Wautier), analyze the Artist of the Background.

Wautier was in her late 40s or early 50s at the time she painted The Triumph of Bacchus, and was living in Brussels, where she was well-known at court. She is likely to have moved to Brussels from Mons after her mother's death, following three of her brothers who had moved to Brussels previously. She lived with her brother Charles, also an established artist at court in Brussels, until she died in 1689.

0959_NT

Triumph of Bacchus (Wautier)

In the context of this artwork, analyze the Artist of the Background.

Wautier was in her late 40s or early 50s at the time she painted The Triumph of Bacchus, and was living in Brussels, where she was well-known at court. She is likely to have moved to Brussels from Mons after her mother's death, following three of her brothers who had moved to Brussels previously. She lived with her brother Charles, also an established artist at court in Brussels, until she died in 1689.

0960_T

Triumph of Bacchus (Wautier)

Describe the characteristics of the Archduke Leopold Wilhelm's collection in Triumph of Bacchus (Wautier)'s Background.

The archduke's collection was largely secular works, but not exclusively, and Wautier's Triumph of Bacchus was not the only Bacchus painting in the archduke's collection. It included Maerten van Heemskerck's Bacchus' Triumphant Return from India, Frans Wouters' Bacchus Procession, and another Bacchus procession by Jan Thomas, which is dated 1656--around the same time as Wautier's Bacchus.His collection included three other paintings attributed to Michaelina Wautier: Saint Joachim Reading a Book, Saint Joseph, and another Saint Joachim.

0960_NT

Triumph of Bacchus (Wautier)

Describe the characteristics of the Archduke Leopold Wilhelm's collection in this artwork's Background.

The archduke's collection was largely secular works, but not exclusively, and Wautier's Triumph of Bacchus was not the only Bacchus painting in the archduke's collection. It included Maerten van Heemskerck's Bacchus' Triumphant Return from India, Frans Wouters' Bacchus Procession, and another Bacchus procession by Jan Thomas, which is dated 1656--around the same time as Wautier's Bacchus.His collection included three other paintings attributed to Michaelina Wautier: Saint Joachim Reading a Book, Saint Joseph, and another Saint Joachim.

0961_T

Triumph of Bacchus (Wautier)

Focus on Triumph of Bacchus (Wautier) and explore the Attribution.

There has been some degree of confusion regarding Michaelina Wautier's name and the works it is attached to. Baptism records from September 2, 1604 mark the birth of a 'Maria Magdalena Watier,' In the 1659 inventory of Leopold Wilhelm's collection, The Triumph of Bacchus was attributed to a von N. Woutiers. Three other paintings, Saint Joachim, Saint Joseph, and Saint Joachim Reading a Book, were each attributed in the inventory to a Magdalena Woutiers despite the fact that Saint Joachim has the name Michelline Wovteers written on the back. This suggests that by 1659, the names Michelline/Michaelina and Magdalena were at least somewhat interchangeable. A historian by the name of F. V. Goethels argued in the nineteenth century that these--Madeline and Michelle, as he spelled them--were two separate women who must have been sisters, but careful research into the sources of these paintings show that they can only be attributed to a single person, whether she is called Magdalena or Michaelina.In 1967 Günther Heinz, a curator at the Kunsthistorisches Museum, confirmed via handwriting that this painting could not belong to anyone but Michaelina Wautier, as it had clearly been done by the same hand as the other three paintings attributed to her in the same collection.

0961_NT

Triumph of Bacchus (Wautier)

Focus on this artwork and explore the Attribution.

There has been some degree of confusion regarding Michaelina Wautier's name and the works it is attached to. Baptism records from September 2, 1604 mark the birth of a 'Maria Magdalena Watier,' In the 1659 inventory of Leopold Wilhelm's collection, The Triumph of Bacchus was attributed to a von N. Woutiers. Three other paintings, Saint Joachim, Saint Joseph, and Saint Joachim Reading a Book, were each attributed in the inventory to a Magdalena Woutiers despite the fact that Saint Joachim has the name Michelline Wovteers written on the back. This suggests that by 1659, the names Michelline/Michaelina and Magdalena were at least somewhat interchangeable. A historian by the name of F. V. Goethels argued in the nineteenth century that these--Madeline and Michelle, as he spelled them--were two separate women who must have been sisters, but careful research into the sources of these paintings show that they can only be attributed to a single person, whether she is called Magdalena or Michaelina.In 1967 Günther Heinz, a curator at the Kunsthistorisches Museum, confirmed via handwriting that this painting could not belong to anyone but Michaelina Wautier, as it had clearly been done by the same hand as the other three paintings attributed to her in the same collection.

0962_T

Stag at Sharkey's

Focus on Stag at Sharkey's and explain the abstract.

Stag at Sharkey's is a 1909 oil painting by George Wesley Bellows depicting two boxers fighting in the private athletic club situated across from his studio. It is part of the Ashcan School movement known in particular for depicting scenes of daily life in early twentieth century New York City, often in the city's poorer neighborhoods. Participants in the boxing ring were usually members of the club, but occasionally outsiders would fight with temporary memberships. These fighters were known as "stags".

0962_NT

Stag at Sharkey's

Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract.

Stag at Sharkey's is a 1909 oil painting by George Wesley Bellows depicting two boxers fighting in the private athletic club situated across from his studio. It is part of the Ashcan School movement known in particular for depicting scenes of daily life in early twentieth century New York City, often in the city's poorer neighborhoods. Participants in the boxing ring were usually members of the club, but occasionally outsiders would fight with temporary memberships. These fighters were known as "stags".

0963_T

Stag at Sharkey's

Explore the Description of this artwork, Stag at Sharkey's.

Bellows used quick strokes to create a blurred image, simulating the two fighters in motion. He also chose a low point of view to put the viewer among the crowd watching the fight. He chooses "expressive involvement" in the action. He said: "I don't know anything about boxing, I'm just painting two men trying to kill each other."

0963_NT

Stag at Sharkey's

Explore the Description of this artwork.

Bellows used quick strokes to create a blurred image, simulating the two fighters in motion. He also chose a low point of view to put the viewer among the crowd watching the fight. He chooses "expressive involvement" in the action. He said: "I don't know anything about boxing, I'm just painting two men trying to kill each other."

0964_T

Stag at Sharkey's

Focus on Stag at Sharkey's and discuss the History.

He painted the work in August 1909, as a part of a boxing series. The painting has been a part of the Cleveland Museum of Art's permanent collection since 1922. He also created a lithograph of the scene, in 1917.

0964_NT

Stag at Sharkey's

Focus on this artwork and discuss the History.

He painted the work in August 1909, as a part of a boxing series. The painting has been a part of the Cleveland Museum of Art's permanent collection since 1922. He also created a lithograph of the scene, in 1917.

0965_T

Agony in the Garden (Perugino)

How does Agony in the Garden (Perugino) elucidate its abstract?

Agony in the Garden is a painting by the Italian Renaissance artist Pietro Perugino, executed around 1483-1493, and housed in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence.

0965_NT

Agony in the Garden (Perugino)

How does this artwork elucidate its abstract?

Agony in the Garden is a painting by the Italian Renaissance artist Pietro Perugino, executed around 1483-1493, and housed in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence.

0966_T

Agony in the Garden (Perugino)

Focus on Agony in the Garden (Perugino) and analyze the History.

The work was painted for the church of the convent of San Giusto alle mura together with the Pietà and a Crucifixion. Renaissance art biographer Giorgio Vasari saw them in side altars of the church of San Giovanni Battista alla Calza, after the original location had been destroyed during the Siege of Florence in 1529. It was moved to the Uffizi in the 20th century. The dating of the work is disputed: it varies from 1482, the year of Perugino's return from Rome, to a slightly later period, although before the end of the century, when the artist started to use only line oil, which in these works is used only at an experimental level. The painting was restored in 1998.

0966_NT

Agony in the Garden (Perugino)

Focus on this artwork and analyze the History.

The work was painted for the church of the convent of San Giusto alle mura together with the Pietà and a Crucifixion. Renaissance art biographer Giorgio Vasari saw them in side altars of the church of San Giovanni Battista alla Calza, after the original location had been destroyed during the Siege of Florence in 1529. It was moved to the Uffizi in the 20th century. The dating of the work is disputed: it varies from 1482, the year of Perugino's return from Rome, to a slightly later period, although before the end of the century, when the artist started to use only line oil, which in these works is used only at an experimental level. The painting was restored in 1998.

0967_T

Marilyn Diptych

In Marilyn Diptych, how is the Analysis discussed?

It has been suggested that the relation between the left side of the canvas and the right side of the canvas is evocative of the relation between the celebrity's life and death. The work has received praise from writers such as American academic and cultural critic Camille Paglia, who wrote in 2012's Glittering Images lauding how it shows the "multiplicity of meanings" in Monroe's life and legacy.In a December 2, 2004, article in The Guardian, the painting was named the third most influential piece of modern art in a survey of 500 artists, critics, and others. The artwork was also ranked ninth in the past 1,000 years by Kathleen Davenport, Director, Rice University Art Gallery, Houston.

0967_NT

Marilyn Diptych

In this artwork, how is the Analysis discussed?

It has been suggested that the relation between the left side of the canvas and the right side of the canvas is evocative of the relation between the celebrity's life and death. The work has received praise from writers such as American academic and cultural critic Camille Paglia, who wrote in 2012's Glittering Images lauding how it shows the "multiplicity of meanings" in Monroe's life and legacy.In a December 2, 2004, article in The Guardian, the painting was named the third most influential piece of modern art in a survey of 500 artists, critics, and others. The artwork was also ranked ninth in the past 1,000 years by Kathleen Davenport, Director, Rice University Art Gallery, Houston.

0968_T

Marilyn Diptych

Focus on Marilyn Diptych and explore the Appropriation and fair use.

Warhol is regarded as an artist known for the appropriation of images and he often made use of publicity photographs and publicly available photographs and motifs not owned by him, which often brought him into conflict with the owners of the source material. An example of this is Warhol's Marilyn series including the Marilyn Diptych, which resulted in a settlement with the owner of the Marilyn Monroe publicity photograph which he used as the source material for the paintings. Warhol and his estate have settled many copyright disputes including with regard to his famous flowers paintings and paintings of Jackie Kennedy, as discussed in detail in "Andy The Appropriator: The Copyright Battles You Won't Hear About at The Whitney's Warhol Exhibit" from The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts: "Although some of Warhol’s work was commissioned by individuals or companies, much of it was appropriated from other artists, photographers, and brands. Two of his most famous pieces, Marilyn Diptych and the collection of Campbell’s soup cans, are examples of his habit of appropriation. For the Marilyn series, Warhol took a promotional photograph of Marilyn Monroe and transferred it onto silkscreen print using different colors. He did not own the promotional photograph that he used and he did not have permission to use it. The resulting work was transformative enough that a strong fair use argument could be made today, but Warhol’s appropriation is undeniable. Similarly, Warhol used the Campbell’s Soup logo without permission from the company for dozens of silkscreen prints. Eventually, Campbell’s Soup tacitly approved of his use because of the free marketing they were receiving, but Warhol’s use of their logo without initial permission was still appropriation."

0968_NT

Marilyn Diptych

Focus on this artwork and explore the Appropriation and fair use.

Warhol is regarded as an artist known for the appropriation of images and he often made use of publicity photographs and publicly available photographs and motifs not owned by him, which often brought him into conflict with the owners of the source material. An example of this is Warhol's Marilyn series including the Marilyn Diptych, which resulted in a settlement with the owner of the Marilyn Monroe publicity photograph which he used as the source material for the paintings. Warhol and his estate have settled many copyright disputes including with regard to his famous flowers paintings and paintings of Jackie Kennedy, as discussed in detail in "Andy The Appropriator: The Copyright Battles You Won't Hear About at The Whitney's Warhol Exhibit" from The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts: "Although some of Warhol’s work was commissioned by individuals or companies, much of it was appropriated from other artists, photographers, and brands. Two of his most famous pieces, Marilyn Diptych and the collection of Campbell’s soup cans, are examples of his habit of appropriation. For the Marilyn series, Warhol took a promotional photograph of Marilyn Monroe and transferred it onto silkscreen print using different colors. He did not own the promotional photograph that he used and he did not have permission to use it. The resulting work was transformative enough that a strong fair use argument could be made today, but Warhol’s appropriation is undeniable. Similarly, Warhol used the Campbell’s Soup logo without permission from the company for dozens of silkscreen prints. Eventually, Campbell’s Soup tacitly approved of his use because of the free marketing they were receiving, but Warhol’s use of their logo without initial permission was still appropriation."

0969_T

Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury

Focus on Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury and explain the abstract.

Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury is an oil on canvas painting by Albert Chevallier Tayler completed in 1907. It was commissioned by the Kent County Cricket Club at the suggestion of chairman Lord Harris to celebrate their first County Championship title win. Tayler painted the picture after taking individual sittings with each of the Kent players. With the exception of short-term loans, the painting remained at the St Lawrence Ground until 1999, at which time it was moved to the Lord's Pavilion as Kent could no longer afford the insurance. In 2006, Kent sold the painting to a charity foundation at an auction. The piece is currently on display at Lord's Cricket Ground in London.

0969_NT

Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury

Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract.

Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury is an oil on canvas painting by Albert Chevallier Tayler completed in 1907. It was commissioned by the Kent County Cricket Club at the suggestion of chairman Lord Harris to celebrate their first County Championship title win. Tayler painted the picture after taking individual sittings with each of the Kent players. With the exception of short-term loans, the painting remained at the St Lawrence Ground until 1999, at which time it was moved to the Lord's Pavilion as Kent could no longer afford the insurance. In 2006, Kent sold the painting to a charity foundation at an auction. The piece is currently on display at Lord's Cricket Ground in London.

0970_T

Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury

Explore the Commissioning of this artwork, Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury.

Kent County Cricket Club won the 1906 County Championship, gaining 78% of the points available in their completed matches, above the 70% achieved by second-place Yorkshire County Cricket Club. This was Kent's first victory since the County Championship had been instituted in 1890. At a celebratory dinner in London, the Kent chairman, George Harris, 4th Baron Harris, suggested that the club commission a painting to celebrate the championship victory.Kent selected Albert Chevallier Tayler as the artist; he had earlier painted Lord Harris batting for Kent in 1905. Tayler was paid 200 guineas by Kent for the painting, with an additional royalty for reproductions that could bring the total as high as 350 guineas.

0970_NT

Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury

Explore the Commissioning of this artwork.

Kent County Cricket Club won the 1906 County Championship, gaining 78% of the points available in their completed matches, above the 70% achieved by second-place Yorkshire County Cricket Club. This was Kent's first victory since the County Championship had been instituted in 1890. At a celebratory dinner in London, the Kent chairman, George Harris, 4th Baron Harris, suggested that the club commission a painting to celebrate the championship victory.Kent selected Albert Chevallier Tayler as the artist; he had earlier painted Lord Harris batting for Kent in 1905. Tayler was paid 200 guineas by Kent for the painting, with an additional royalty for reproductions that could bring the total as high as 350 guineas.

0971_T

Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury

Focus on Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury and discuss the Reception and display history.

Tayler completed the painting in 1907. By this time, 192 advance engravings of the painting had been ordered, ensuring that Tayler would be well compensated for the work. When the painting was unveiled, it was praised for its accuracy, use of lighting, and shade. In 1908, a limited print signed by Tayler and Lord Harris was created; further prints were made by Kent in 1990 and 2000, and each was signed by current players of their respective times, including Colin Cowdrey, E.W. Swanton, Les Ames and Matthew Fleming. As a result of its popularity, the painting was lent out for display at Rectory Field, Blackheath and Lord's Cricket Ground. The painting is viewed by cricket fans and historians as a notable illustration of the Golden Age of cricket in the Victorian and Edwardian periods before the First World War. Cricket historian E. W. Swanton praised the painting, singling it out as "one of the finest ever portrayals of distinguished identifiable cricketers in action".The painting was predominantly displayed in the pavilion of the St. Lawrence Ground. However, in 1999 it was lent to Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) after Kent were unable to continue to afford its insurance. The MCC hung the painting in the Lord's Pavilion while Kent retained one of the prints for display in the St. Lawrence Ground pavilion in place of the original. In 2005, with Kent finding itself in debt, the club announced their intention to sell the painting. When questioned by Kent members about the proposed sale, Kent chairman Carl Openshaw said that it was being done because he felt the painting no longer particularly benefited the cricket club as many of Kent's members already owned reproductions of the painting. Openshaw also stated that the painting would not be sold if it did not achieve an "appropriate sum".The painting was auctioned at Sotheby's in 2006. With a guide price of £300,000 to £500,000, the painting was sold for £680,000. This was a record price for a cricket painting. It was bought by the Andrew Brownsword Art Foundation run by Bath Rugby chairman Andrew Brownsword; the foundation is known for keeping "important British paintings in the public eye in Britain". The painting's new owner lent it to the MCC so it could be kept on display at Lord's in keeping with Openshaw's preference that the painting remain at Lord's. The sale of the painting contributed to a £293,000 profit for Kent in their 2006 financial year. On display in the Long Room in the Lord's Pavilion, the painting has been used as the background for a number of publicity photographs for the England cricket team, including the unveiling of new England captains.

0971_NT

Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury

Focus on this artwork and discuss the Reception and display history.

Tayler completed the painting in 1907. By this time, 192 advance engravings of the painting had been ordered, ensuring that Tayler would be well compensated for the work. When the painting was unveiled, it was praised for its accuracy, use of lighting, and shade. In 1908, a limited print signed by Tayler and Lord Harris was created; further prints were made by Kent in 1990 and 2000, and each was signed by current players of their respective times, including Colin Cowdrey, E.W. Swanton, Les Ames and Matthew Fleming. As a result of its popularity, the painting was lent out for display at Rectory Field, Blackheath and Lord's Cricket Ground. The painting is viewed by cricket fans and historians as a notable illustration of the Golden Age of cricket in the Victorian and Edwardian periods before the First World War. Cricket historian E. W. Swanton praised the painting, singling it out as "one of the finest ever portrayals of distinguished identifiable cricketers in action".The painting was predominantly displayed in the pavilion of the St. Lawrence Ground. However, in 1999 it was lent to Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) after Kent were unable to continue to afford its insurance. The MCC hung the painting in the Lord's Pavilion while Kent retained one of the prints for display in the St. Lawrence Ground pavilion in place of the original. In 2005, with Kent finding itself in debt, the club announced their intention to sell the painting. When questioned by Kent members about the proposed sale, Kent chairman Carl Openshaw said that it was being done because he felt the painting no longer particularly benefited the cricket club as many of Kent's members already owned reproductions of the painting. Openshaw also stated that the painting would not be sold if it did not achieve an "appropriate sum".The painting was auctioned at Sotheby's in 2006. With a guide price of £300,000 to £500,000, the painting was sold for £680,000. This was a record price for a cricket painting. It was bought by the Andrew Brownsword Art Foundation run by Bath Rugby chairman Andrew Brownsword; the foundation is known for keeping "important British paintings in the public eye in Britain". The painting's new owner lent it to the MCC so it could be kept on display at Lord's in keeping with Openshaw's preference that the painting remain at Lord's. The sale of the painting contributed to a £293,000 profit for Kent in their 2006 financial year. On display in the Long Room in the Lord's Pavilion, the painting has been used as the background for a number of publicity photographs for the England cricket team, including the unveiling of new England captains.

0972_T

The Immaculate Conception (El Greco, Toledo)

How does The Immaculate Conception (El Greco, Toledo) elucidate its abstract?

The Virgin of the Immaculate Conception is a painting of the Immaculate Conception by El Greco. The work on the painting began in 1607 and was completed in 1613. It is owned by the church of San Nicolás de Bari in Toledo, Spain. It is displayed, however, in the Museum of Santa Cruz in Toledo, Spain.

0972_NT

The Immaculate Conception (El Greco, Toledo)

How does this artwork elucidate its abstract?

The Virgin of the Immaculate Conception is a painting of the Immaculate Conception by El Greco. The work on the painting began in 1607 and was completed in 1613. It is owned by the church of San Nicolás de Bari in Toledo, Spain. It is displayed, however, in the Museum of Santa Cruz in Toledo, Spain.

0973_T

The Immaculate Conception (El Greco, Toledo)

Focus on The Immaculate Conception (El Greco, Toledo) and analyze the Background.

El Greco immersed himself in the Italian Renaissance during his stay in Venice and Rome, which allowed him to experiment with the opposing colore and disegno techniques for size. Afterwards, El Greco relocated to Toledo in 1577, and this move signified the beginning of his vital role in the Spanish Renaissance movement. He left behind a circle of like-minded individuals in Italy, mostly scholars and fellow artists, who shared the belief that a virtuoso, or a true artist, was one that surpassed basic craftsmanship into the realm of artistic imagination. However, this Italian mutual ideology and treatment of artists was not echoed in Toledo, Spain.In hopes of becoming a reputed and well-represented artist in Spain, El Greco aimed to be recognised by King Phillip II. Royal patronage would have ensured a secure transition to Spain, and could possibly have helped him to move to a metropolis like Madrid. However, following a string of legal disputes over what El Greco deemed inadequate pay for his work, the Cretan master failed to achieve King Phillip's approval.Consequently, El Greco remained in Toledo for the rest of his life, where he was well-received by his contemporaries. One such contemporary was the Spanish preacher and poet Hortensio Félix Paravicino, who remarked that, "Crete gave him life and the painter's craft, Toledo a better homeland, where through Death he began to achieve eternal life." Besides the appreciation shown towards El Greco by his contemporaries, he also found success in his artistic career; between the years of 1581 and 1585. As such, the demand for devotional works by El Greco's patrons escalated rapidly. His customers were able to choose from a few samples, often smaller versions of his works, which he would then alter to suit their preferences. El Greco later became the master of a workshop which dealt with the creation of architectural or framing devices for cathedrals. These years of 1597 - 1607 were a profitable decade for him and his workshop, yielding several commissions and outputs. Despite staying in Toledo, this granted El Greco significant projects which would elevate his artistic career and reputation to meet his ambitions.

0973_NT

The Immaculate Conception (El Greco, Toledo)

Focus on this artwork and analyze the Background.

El Greco immersed himself in the Italian Renaissance during his stay in Venice and Rome, which allowed him to experiment with the opposing colore and disegno techniques for size. Afterwards, El Greco relocated to Toledo in 1577, and this move signified the beginning of his vital role in the Spanish Renaissance movement. He left behind a circle of like-minded individuals in Italy, mostly scholars and fellow artists, who shared the belief that a virtuoso, or a true artist, was one that surpassed basic craftsmanship into the realm of artistic imagination. However, this Italian mutual ideology and treatment of artists was not echoed in Toledo, Spain.In hopes of becoming a reputed and well-represented artist in Spain, El Greco aimed to be recognised by King Phillip II. Royal patronage would have ensured a secure transition to Spain, and could possibly have helped him to move to a metropolis like Madrid. However, following a string of legal disputes over what El Greco deemed inadequate pay for his work, the Cretan master failed to achieve King Phillip's approval.Consequently, El Greco remained in Toledo for the rest of his life, where he was well-received by his contemporaries. One such contemporary was the Spanish preacher and poet Hortensio Félix Paravicino, who remarked that, "Crete gave him life and the painter's craft, Toledo a better homeland, where through Death he began to achieve eternal life." Besides the appreciation shown towards El Greco by his contemporaries, he also found success in his artistic career; between the years of 1581 and 1585. As such, the demand for devotional works by El Greco's patrons escalated rapidly. His customers were able to choose from a few samples, often smaller versions of his works, which he would then alter to suit their preferences. El Greco later became the master of a workshop which dealt with the creation of architectural or framing devices for cathedrals. These years of 1597 - 1607 were a profitable decade for him and his workshop, yielding several commissions and outputs. Despite staying in Toledo, this granted El Greco significant projects which would elevate his artistic career and reputation to meet his ambitions.

0974_T

The Immaculate Conception (El Greco, Toledo)

In The Immaculate Conception (El Greco, Toledo), how is the Analysis discussed?

The work is noticeably painted with the artist's intent for the viewer's gaze to concentrate on the Virgin. Painted for the high altar of the Chapel of Oballe, San Vicente, Toledo, it was the schematic centerpiece and was accompanied by the Visitation. Two other probable companions are the renditions of Saint Peter and Saint Ildefonso. As in the earlier version, El Greco includes several elements attributed to the Virgin Mary: such as flowers like roses and lilies, a fountain of clear water, and an enclosed garden. Here we see an added view of Toledo on the bottom left of the painting. For an atmosphere of divinity, El Greco has depicted the supernatural simultaneous glowing of the sun and the moon. When comparing the two paintings to one another, the time gap in their production is visible in how El Greco's stylistic preferences become exaggerated. Towards the later years of his career, his style progresses into one that overlooks proportion, scale, atmospheric perspective, realistic anatomy, and color blending. His figures become radically elongated and possess an ethereal, ghostly skin tone. These details act in contrast to the lifelike floral still life they are set against to communicate the metamorphosis from the earthly and the divine.

0974_NT

The Immaculate Conception (El Greco, Toledo)

In this artwork, how is the Analysis discussed?

The work is noticeably painted with the artist's intent for the viewer's gaze to concentrate on the Virgin. Painted for the high altar of the Chapel of Oballe, San Vicente, Toledo, it was the schematic centerpiece and was accompanied by the Visitation. Two other probable companions are the renditions of Saint Peter and Saint Ildefonso. As in the earlier version, El Greco includes several elements attributed to the Virgin Mary: such as flowers like roses and lilies, a fountain of clear water, and an enclosed garden. Here we see an added view of Toledo on the bottom left of the painting. For an atmosphere of divinity, El Greco has depicted the supernatural simultaneous glowing of the sun and the moon. When comparing the two paintings to one another, the time gap in their production is visible in how El Greco's stylistic preferences become exaggerated. Towards the later years of his career, his style progresses into one that overlooks proportion, scale, atmospheric perspective, realistic anatomy, and color blending. His figures become radically elongated and possess an ethereal, ghostly skin tone. These details act in contrast to the lifelike floral still life they are set against to communicate the metamorphosis from the earthly and the divine.

0975_T

The Immaculate Conception (El Greco, Toledo)

Focus on The Immaculate Conception (El Greco, Toledo) and explore the Technique and influence.

In accordance to his training in Venice, as well as his preference that opposed Northern Italy's focus on design over color, El Greco held the belief that the color used in a composition is superior to its form. The works of his later years contain figural depictions that are more theatrical than descriptive in their forms. Without being melodramatic, El Greco manages to convey pathos in his ecclesial renderings. His tendency to stretch out his figures is amplified in his altarpiece works. In his completion of The Virgin of the Immaculate Conception, El Greco had requested that the altarpiece be lengthened so as to not compromise the length of the Virgin's figure.Despite the criticism El Greco faced during the span of his artistic career, especially in his later years, his works found admirers and inspired the innovations of artists from the 19th century onward. Beginning with artists such as Eugène Delacroix and Édouard Manet, who were drawn to his use of color and expression, the creative correspondence continued into the 20th century. His muddling of space and the forms which occupy it became a pictorial device later employed by modern artists such as Paul Cézanne and Pablo Picasso. This led to El Greco being credited as the forefather of Expressionism and Cubism. The symbolists were influenced by the reserved figural expression the old master portrayed in his pictures, referencing them for their own works. Rainer Maria Rilke and Nikos Kazantzakis, literary artists, were bemused to write by the mystical character rumored (by scholars) as one having been possessed by El Greco in addition to the artworks he produced.. A collection of poetic works by Rilke, (Himmelfahrt Mariae I.II., 1913), were written after the poet had viewed The Virgin of the Immaculate Conception. Contemporary artists as well, such as Kysa Johnson, in her specific use of The Virgin of the Immaculate Conception as a basis for her works, have been influenced by the 16th-and-early-17th-century artist.

0975_NT

The Immaculate Conception (El Greco, Toledo)

Focus on this artwork and explore the Technique and influence.

In accordance to his training in Venice, as well as his preference that opposed Northern Italy's focus on design over color, El Greco held the belief that the color used in a composition is superior to its form. The works of his later years contain figural depictions that are more theatrical than descriptive in their forms. Without being melodramatic, El Greco manages to convey pathos in his ecclesial renderings. His tendency to stretch out his figures is amplified in his altarpiece works. In his completion of The Virgin of the Immaculate Conception, El Greco had requested that the altarpiece be lengthened so as to not compromise the length of the Virgin's figure.Despite the criticism El Greco faced during the span of his artistic career, especially in his later years, his works found admirers and inspired the innovations of artists from the 19th century onward. Beginning with artists such as Eugène Delacroix and Édouard Manet, who were drawn to his use of color and expression, the creative correspondence continued into the 20th century. His muddling of space and the forms which occupy it became a pictorial device later employed by modern artists such as Paul Cézanne and Pablo Picasso. This led to El Greco being credited as the forefather of Expressionism and Cubism. The symbolists were influenced by the reserved figural expression the old master portrayed in his pictures, referencing them for their own works. Rainer Maria Rilke and Nikos Kazantzakis, literary artists, were bemused to write by the mystical character rumored (by scholars) as one having been possessed by El Greco in addition to the artworks he produced.. A collection of poetic works by Rilke, (Himmelfahrt Mariae I.II., 1913), were written after the poet had viewed The Virgin of the Immaculate Conception. Contemporary artists as well, such as Kysa Johnson, in her specific use of The Virgin of the Immaculate Conception as a basis for her works, have been influenced by the 16th-and-early-17th-century artist.

0976_T

Beatrice Hastings devant une porte

Focus on Beatrice Hastings devant une porte and explain the abstract.

Beatrice Hastings devant une porte is a 1915 painting by Amedeo Modigliani, depicting his then lover Beatrice Hastings. It is one of 14 portraits Modigliani painted of Hastings. In 2002 the painting was sold at auction for $4.2 million to a private collector.

0976_NT

Beatrice Hastings devant une porte

Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract.

Beatrice Hastings devant une porte is a 1915 painting by Amedeo Modigliani, depicting his then lover Beatrice Hastings. It is one of 14 portraits Modigliani painted of Hastings. In 2002 the painting was sold at auction for $4.2 million to a private collector.

0977_T

Human Rights Monument

Explore the abstract of this artwork, Human Rights Monument.

The Human Rights Monument or Human Rights Sculpture is a monument in Turkey's capital, Ankara. The monument was made by sculptor Metin Yurdanur in 1990 out of bronze. The monument which depicts a woman reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has been the assembly point of many protests. The monument can be found at the intersection of Konur street and Yüksel street and its latest restoration was in 2010.

0977_NT

Human Rights Monument

Explore the abstract of this artwork.

The Human Rights Monument or Human Rights Sculpture is a monument in Turkey's capital, Ankara. The monument was made by sculptor Metin Yurdanur in 1990 out of bronze. The monument which depicts a woman reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has been the assembly point of many protests. The monument can be found at the intersection of Konur street and Yüksel street and its latest restoration was in 2010.

0978_T

Depew Memorial Fountain

Focus on Depew Memorial Fountain and discuss the abstract.

Depew Memorial Fountain is a freestanding fountain completed in 1919 and located in University Park in downtown Indianapolis, Indiana, within the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza.

0978_NT

Depew Memorial Fountain

Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract.

Depew Memorial Fountain is a freestanding fountain completed in 1919 and located in University Park in downtown Indianapolis, Indiana, within the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza.

0979_T

Depew Memorial Fountain

How does Depew Memorial Fountain elucidate its Description?

The fountain is composed of multiple bronze figures arranged on a five-tier Stony Creek pink granite base with three basins. The bronze sculptures depict fish, eight children dancing, and a woman on the topmost tier dancing and playing cymbals. The overall dimensions are approximately 25 x 45 x 25 by 45 feet (7.6 m × 13.7 m). A memorial plaque is located on south side of the large granite basin. It reads:Depew Memorial Fountain. A gift to Indianapolis from Emma Ely Depew in memory of her husband Richard Johnson Depew M.D. whose long and honorable life was spent in untiring service to his fellow men.

0979_NT

Depew Memorial Fountain

How does this artwork elucidate its Description?

The fountain is composed of multiple bronze figures arranged on a five-tier Stony Creek pink granite base with three basins. The bronze sculptures depict fish, eight children dancing, and a woman on the topmost tier dancing and playing cymbals. The overall dimensions are approximately 25 x 45 x 25 by 45 feet (7.6 m × 13.7 m). A memorial plaque is located on south side of the large granite basin. It reads:Depew Memorial Fountain. A gift to Indianapolis from Emma Ely Depew in memory of her husband Richard Johnson Depew M.D. whose long and honorable life was spent in untiring service to his fellow men.

0980_T

Depew Memorial Fountain

Focus on Depew Memorial Fountain and analyze the Artists.

Alexander Stirling Calder (1870–1945, American) Karl Bitter (1867–1915, Austrian/American) Henry Bacon (1866–1924, American)

0980_NT

Depew Memorial Fountain

Focus on this artwork and analyze the Artists.

Alexander Stirling Calder (1870–1945, American) Karl Bitter (1867–1915, Austrian/American) Henry Bacon (1866–1924, American)

0981_T

The Immaculate Conception with Saint Lawrence and Saint Francis of Paola

In The Immaculate Conception with Saint Lawrence and Saint Francis of Paola, how is the abstract discussed?

The Immaculate Conception with Saint Lawrence and Saint Francis of Paola is an oil on canvas altarpiece by the Italian Rococo painter Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo. It is on display in the Musée des Beaux-Arts of Strasbourg, France. Its inventory number is 435.The painting depicts Mary, mother of Jesus as the Immaculata, appearing to Saint Lawrence, who gazes at her, and to Francis of Paola, who looks at the viewer while pointing his left hand towards the apparition. Owing to its flamboyant virtuosity and its expressiveness, the work has long been thought to have been painted by Giovanni Domenico's father, Giovanni Battista, but since 1939, it is accepted as an early masterpiece by the younger Tiepolo. On account of the stylistic resemblances with Giovanni Battista's paintings, it is thought that it was painted shortly after his death, i.e. 1770, when Giovanni Domenico was still carrying his father's mantle while beginning to develop his own, more realistic and even naturalistic style (here visible in the trompe-l'œil basket at the lower edge of the painting).The painting was bought in 1898 by Wilhelm von Bode from the Florentine art dealer Elia Volpi, and entered the collections in 1900. Between 1810 and 1879, it had belonged to the parish church of Cavenzano, Chiesa di Santa Maria Assunta (Cavenzano), now part of the commune of Campolongo Tapogliano, where it was replaced by a faithful copy. Before that, it had belonged to the Dominican monastery of Aiello del Friuli. But it is not documented if the altarpiece was painted for that institution or, for that matter, who commissioned it.

0981_NT

The Immaculate Conception with Saint Lawrence and Saint Francis of Paola

In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed?

The Immaculate Conception with Saint Lawrence and Saint Francis of Paola is an oil on canvas altarpiece by the Italian Rococo painter Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo. It is on display in the Musée des Beaux-Arts of Strasbourg, France. Its inventory number is 435.The painting depicts Mary, mother of Jesus as the Immaculata, appearing to Saint Lawrence, who gazes at her, and to Francis of Paola, who looks at the viewer while pointing his left hand towards the apparition. Owing to its flamboyant virtuosity and its expressiveness, the work has long been thought to have been painted by Giovanni Domenico's father, Giovanni Battista, but since 1939, it is accepted as an early masterpiece by the younger Tiepolo. On account of the stylistic resemblances with Giovanni Battista's paintings, it is thought that it was painted shortly after his death, i.e. 1770, when Giovanni Domenico was still carrying his father's mantle while beginning to develop his own, more realistic and even naturalistic style (here visible in the trompe-l'œil basket at the lower edge of the painting).The painting was bought in 1898 by Wilhelm von Bode from the Florentine art dealer Elia Volpi, and entered the collections in 1900. Between 1810 and 1879, it had belonged to the parish church of Cavenzano, Chiesa di Santa Maria Assunta (Cavenzano), now part of the commune of Campolongo Tapogliano, where it was replaced by a faithful copy. Before that, it had belonged to the Dominican monastery of Aiello del Friuli. But it is not documented if the altarpiece was painted for that institution or, for that matter, who commissioned it.

0982_T

Laughing Boy (painting)

Focus on Laughing Boy (painting) and explore the abstract.

Laughing Boy (Dutch: Lachende jongen) is a circular oil-on-panel painting by the Dutch artist Frans Hals. It belongs to the tronie genre and was painted around 1625. It is in the collection of the Mauritshuis. Another circular portrait with a laughing boy is in the collection of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and shows a soap bubble on the right. A third version exists where the boy is grasping a whistle or flute. Several other circular portraits of laughing boys, all painted around the same period, with or without a bubble or a whistle, have been attributed to Hals in the past. Of the twenty or so paintings identified in 1974 by the Hals expert Seymour Slive, he considered only three to be authentic. The Hals expert Claus Grimm rejected the other two and claims only this one is authentic. In his own time, Hals' works were copied by art students. In the late 19th century young artists in the impressionist movement were impressed by the loose brush strokes and wet-in-wet painting technique of these small tondos, and it is possible that a few of the many copies on the art market today date from this later period. Other boys painted by Hals in round tondos:

0982_NT

Laughing Boy (painting)

Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract.

Laughing Boy (Dutch: Lachende jongen) is a circular oil-on-panel painting by the Dutch artist Frans Hals. It belongs to the tronie genre and was painted around 1625. It is in the collection of the Mauritshuis. Another circular portrait with a laughing boy is in the collection of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and shows a soap bubble on the right. A third version exists where the boy is grasping a whistle or flute. Several other circular portraits of laughing boys, all painted around the same period, with or without a bubble or a whistle, have been attributed to Hals in the past. Of the twenty or so paintings identified in 1974 by the Hals expert Seymour Slive, he considered only three to be authentic. The Hals expert Claus Grimm rejected the other two and claims only this one is authentic. In his own time, Hals' works were copied by art students. In the late 19th century young artists in the impressionist movement were impressed by the loose brush strokes and wet-in-wet painting technique of these small tondos, and it is possible that a few of the many copies on the art market today date from this later period. Other boys painted by Hals in round tondos:

0983_T

The Bagpipe Player

Focus on The Bagpipe Player and explain the abstract.

The Bagpipe Player is an oil painting by the Flemish artist Jacob Jordaens depicting the artist himself dressed as a musician blowing a bagpipe. It was bought in London in 2009 for 93,000 Euros by the King Baudouin Foundation with funds from the Léon Courtin-Marcelle Bouché Foundation, which also financed its restoration. It is now on display in the Rubenshuis in Antwerp.

0983_NT

The Bagpipe Player

Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract.

The Bagpipe Player is an oil painting by the Flemish artist Jacob Jordaens depicting the artist himself dressed as a musician blowing a bagpipe. It was bought in London in 2009 for 93,000 Euros by the King Baudouin Foundation with funds from the Léon Courtin-Marcelle Bouché Foundation, which also financed its restoration. It is now on display in the Rubenshuis in Antwerp.

0984_T

The Bagpipe Player

Explore the Subject of this artwork, The Bagpipe Player.

The Bagpipe Player was painted 'after life' and is dated to the period of 1638–1640 or 1640–1645 depending on the sources. It is executed in oil on canvas and measures 90 x 110 cm.Jacob Jordaens sat himself as the model for the painting. Even so, the painting is not regarded as a self-portrait. The precise meaning of the painting has remained unclear. The artist used his own image in a number of other paintings, including the version of As the Old Sing, So the Young Pipe in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Valenciennes, which dates from a slightly later date than the Bagpipe player. There are at least three more works by the master (or his workshop) in which the artist's own image appears.As Jordaens was already a successful artist when he painted the work it is not obvious why he depicted himself as a humble player of a bagpipe, an instrument used in popular music. In more formal self-portraits, Jordaens has represented himself with a lute, which in the 17th century was regarded as the noblest musical instrument. Jordaens' depiction of himself as a bagpipe player may be interpreted as a form of self-mockery.

0984_NT

The Bagpipe Player

Explore the Subject of this artwork.

The Bagpipe Player was painted 'after life' and is dated to the period of 1638–1640 or 1640–1645 depending on the sources. It is executed in oil on canvas and measures 90 x 110 cm.Jacob Jordaens sat himself as the model for the painting. Even so, the painting is not regarded as a self-portrait. The precise meaning of the painting has remained unclear. The artist used his own image in a number of other paintings, including the version of As the Old Sing, So the Young Pipe in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Valenciennes, which dates from a slightly later date than the Bagpipe player. There are at least three more works by the master (or his workshop) in which the artist's own image appears.As Jordaens was already a successful artist when he painted the work it is not obvious why he depicted himself as a humble player of a bagpipe, an instrument used in popular music. In more formal self-portraits, Jordaens has represented himself with a lute, which in the 17th century was regarded as the noblest musical instrument. Jordaens' depiction of himself as a bagpipe player may be interpreted as a form of self-mockery.

0985_T

Dragon's head and wind chime

Focus on Dragon's head and wind chime and discuss the abstract.

The dragon's head and wind chime is an elaborate type of gilt bronze Korean wind chime and Korean dragon sculpture of later Silla / early Goryeo art, probably serving as a roof end tile figure on a Korean Buddhist temple or Korean palace. There are two similar near-complete examples, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, and at Leeum, Samsung Museum of Art in Seoul, which is designated National Treasure No. 781.Belonging to the 10th century AD, this work would originally have been attached to a corner rafter of a royal palace building or a Buddhist temple hall. The artifact, made of guilt bronze consists of two major parts: the lower wind chime and upper rafter finial with the shape of a dragon head. The dragon head contains various intricate designs and its eyes, closed mouth, horns, ears and elaborate scales convey the fierceness of the mythical creature. A hook in the upper part of the chime might have used to hang the chime in the rafter, as loops can be seen in the chin of the dragon head. The lower part of the wind chime contains decorative panels of a circular platform with lotus motifs in either side. A swastika symbol can be observed in the middle of the platform. This is considered as an ancient symbol related with Buddha. As the dragon is considered as a symbol of protection and fierceness in Asian tradition, it is speculated that this chime would have attached as a roof end tile figure to a royal palace or a Buddhist temple hall. Dragon finials are significant in Korean art. The dragon face resembles that at Godal Temple, which is dated to 975.

0985_NT

Dragon's head and wind chime

Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract.

The dragon's head and wind chime is an elaborate type of gilt bronze Korean wind chime and Korean dragon sculpture of later Silla / early Goryeo art, probably serving as a roof end tile figure on a Korean Buddhist temple or Korean palace. There are two similar near-complete examples, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, and at Leeum, Samsung Museum of Art in Seoul, which is designated National Treasure No. 781.Belonging to the 10th century AD, this work would originally have been attached to a corner rafter of a royal palace building or a Buddhist temple hall. The artifact, made of guilt bronze consists of two major parts: the lower wind chime and upper rafter finial with the shape of a dragon head. The dragon head contains various intricate designs and its eyes, closed mouth, horns, ears and elaborate scales convey the fierceness of the mythical creature. A hook in the upper part of the chime might have used to hang the chime in the rafter, as loops can be seen in the chin of the dragon head. The lower part of the wind chime contains decorative panels of a circular platform with lotus motifs in either side. A swastika symbol can be observed in the middle of the platform. This is considered as an ancient symbol related with Buddha. As the dragon is considered as a symbol of protection and fierceness in Asian tradition, it is speculated that this chime would have attached as a roof end tile figure to a royal palace or a Buddhist temple hall. Dragon finials are significant in Korean art. The dragon face resembles that at Godal Temple, which is dated to 975.

0986_T

Dragon's head and wind chime

How does Dragon's head and wind chime elucidate its Introduction?

Korean peninsula has a long history of art. The Korean pottery shows advanced techniques and elaborate jewelry has been found buried in ancient Korean tombs. From 7th to 17th century AD, metal crafting was developed and fine metal works can be observed. Also Korean porcelain and painting was developed with its distinctive style. This Rafter finial in the shape of a dragon's head and wind chime is one of the finest metal works of Goryeo period. In the Korean art and culture, dragon figure holds a significant place. Specially, dragon is considered as the protector of humans as well as warding off evil spirits. This figure, displaying the fierceness of a dragon, shows how advanced metal work Goryeo craftsmen had. The bell, which functioned as a punggyeong (Korean: 풍경, lit. 'wind bell'), originally had a metal-plated clapped inside. Another similar example for the dragon's head and wind chime set can be seen at Leeum, Samsung Museum of Art, Seoul, and the dragon's head element is designated National Treasure No. 781.

0986_NT

Dragon's head and wind chime

How does this artwork elucidate its Introduction?

Korean peninsula has a long history of art. The Korean pottery shows advanced techniques and elaborate jewelry has been found buried in ancient Korean tombs. From 7th to 17th century AD, metal crafting was developed and fine metal works can be observed. Also Korean porcelain and painting was developed with its distinctive style. This Rafter finial in the shape of a dragon's head and wind chime is one of the finest metal works of Goryeo period. In the Korean art and culture, dragon figure holds a significant place. Specially, dragon is considered as the protector of humans as well as warding off evil spirits. This figure, displaying the fierceness of a dragon, shows how advanced metal work Goryeo craftsmen had. The bell, which functioned as a punggyeong (Korean: 풍경, lit. 'wind bell'), originally had a metal-plated clapped inside. Another similar example for the dragon's head and wind chime set can be seen at Leeum, Samsung Museum of Art, Seoul, and the dragon's head element is designated National Treasure No. 781.

0987_T

The Knitting Girl

Focus on The Knitting Girl and analyze the abstract.

The Knitting Girl (French: La Couseuse) is an oil-on-canvas painting executed in 1869 by the French academic artist William-Adolphe Bouguereau. It is currently held in the Joslyn Art Museum in Omaha, Nebraska, in the United States.

0987_NT

The Knitting Girl

Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract.

The Knitting Girl (French: La Couseuse) is an oil-on-canvas painting executed in 1869 by the French academic artist William-Adolphe Bouguereau. It is currently held in the Joslyn Art Museum in Omaha, Nebraska, in the United States.

0988_T

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

In Madonna of the Yarnwinder, how is the abstract discussed?

The Madonna of the Yarnwinder (Italian: Madonna dei Fusi, "Madonna of the Spindles") is a subject depicted by Leonardo da Vinci in at least one, and perhaps two paintings begun in 1499 or later. Leonardo was recorded as being at work on one such picture in Florence in 1501 for Florimond Robertet, a secretary to King Louis XII of France. This may have been delivered to the French court in 1507, though scholars are divided on this point. The subject is known today from several versions of which two, called the Buccleuch Madonna and the Lansdowne Madonna, are thought to be partly by Leonardo's hand. The underdrawings of both paintings show similar experimental changes made to the composition (or pentimenti), suggesting that both evolved concurrently in Leonardo's workshop. The composition shows the Virgin Mary seated in a landscape with the Christ child, who gazes at a niddy-noddy used to collect spun yarn. The niddy-noddy serves both as a symbol of Mary's domesticity and as a foreshadowing of the Cross on which Christ was crucified. The painting's dynamic composition and the implied narrative were highly influential on later High Renaissance depictions of the Madonna and Child by artists such as Raphael and Andrea del Sarto.

0988_NT

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed?

The Madonna of the Yarnwinder (Italian: Madonna dei Fusi, "Madonna of the Spindles") is a subject depicted by Leonardo da Vinci in at least one, and perhaps two paintings begun in 1499 or later. Leonardo was recorded as being at work on one such picture in Florence in 1501 for Florimond Robertet, a secretary to King Louis XII of France. This may have been delivered to the French court in 1507, though scholars are divided on this point. The subject is known today from several versions of which two, called the Buccleuch Madonna and the Lansdowne Madonna, are thought to be partly by Leonardo's hand. The underdrawings of both paintings show similar experimental changes made to the composition (or pentimenti), suggesting that both evolved concurrently in Leonardo's workshop. The composition shows the Virgin Mary seated in a landscape with the Christ child, who gazes at a niddy-noddy used to collect spun yarn. The niddy-noddy serves both as a symbol of Mary's domesticity and as a foreshadowing of the Cross on which Christ was crucified. The painting's dynamic composition and the implied narrative were highly influential on later High Renaissance depictions of the Madonna and Child by artists such as Raphael and Andrea del Sarto.

0989_T

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Focus on Madonna of the Yarnwinder and explore the History.

The earliest reference to a painting of this subject by Leonardo is in a letter of 14 April 1501 by Fra Pietro da Novellara, the head of the Carmelites in Florence, to Isabella d'Este, Marchioness of Mantua. Leonardo had recently returned to his native city following the French invasion of Milan in 1499; the intervening years he had spent first in Isabella's court, during which brief stay he produced a cartoon (now in the Louvre) for a portrait of her, and then in Venice. Isabella was determined to get a finished painting by Leonardo for her collection, and to that end she instructed Fra Pietro, her contact in Florence, to press Leonardo into agreeing to a commission. Two letters of reply by the friar survive. In the second, written after he had succeeded in meeting with the artist, he writes that Leonardo has become distracted by his mathematical pursuits and is busy working on a small painting for Florimond Robertet, which he goes on to describe:"The little picture which he is doing is of a Madonna seated as if she were about to spin yarn. The Child has placed his foot on the basket of yarns and has grasped the yarn-winder and gazes attentively at four spokes that are in the form of a cross. As if desirous of the cross he smiles and holds it firm, and is unwilling to yield it to his Mother who seems to want to take it away from him."The passage is valuable for being one of the few descriptions by a contemporary viewer of a work by Leonardo; it matches the composition of the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas in all respects except that there is no basket in either painting. Robertet's painting was probably commissioned late in 1499 just before Leonardo left Milan, and was possibly begun there. Scholars disagree on whether Robertet received his painting or not. In January 1507 Francesco Pandolfini, the Florentine ambassador to the French court in Blois, reported that “a little picture by [Leonardo’s] hand has recently been brought here and is held to be an excellent thing”. The Madonna does not, however, appear in a posthumous inventory of Robertet's collection made in 1532 (though the authenticity of the inventory has been called into question). One hypothesis holds that it passed from Robertet's collection into that of the French king, thus explaining its absence from the inventory. It is unclear, however, why it would have left the royal collection.In 1525 two inventories were drawn up of the possessions of Leonardo's assistant and heir Salaì, who died the preceding year. These mention a “Madonna with a Child in her Arms”. This is thought to be evidence that one of the prime versions of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder remained in Leonardo's possession while the other was sent to Robertet.Neither of the paintings accepted as prime versions has a provenance that can be traced back to Robertet or Salaì, or further back than the 18th century, though the Buccleuch Madonna was in France at that time. However, the Lansdowne Madonna could easily have been bought by its earliest known owners from a French collection in the period following the French Revolution, when many works with a French aristocratic provenance were bought by British collectors.

0989_NT

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Focus on this artwork and explore the History.

The earliest reference to a painting of this subject by Leonardo is in a letter of 14 April 1501 by Fra Pietro da Novellara, the head of the Carmelites in Florence, to Isabella d'Este, Marchioness of Mantua. Leonardo had recently returned to his native city following the French invasion of Milan in 1499; the intervening years he had spent first in Isabella's court, during which brief stay he produced a cartoon (now in the Louvre) for a portrait of her, and then in Venice. Isabella was determined to get a finished painting by Leonardo for her collection, and to that end she instructed Fra Pietro, her contact in Florence, to press Leonardo into agreeing to a commission. Two letters of reply by the friar survive. In the second, written after he had succeeded in meeting with the artist, he writes that Leonardo has become distracted by his mathematical pursuits and is busy working on a small painting for Florimond Robertet, which he goes on to describe:"The little picture which he is doing is of a Madonna seated as if she were about to spin yarn. The Child has placed his foot on the basket of yarns and has grasped the yarn-winder and gazes attentively at four spokes that are in the form of a cross. As if desirous of the cross he smiles and holds it firm, and is unwilling to yield it to his Mother who seems to want to take it away from him."The passage is valuable for being one of the few descriptions by a contemporary viewer of a work by Leonardo; it matches the composition of the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas in all respects except that there is no basket in either painting. Robertet's painting was probably commissioned late in 1499 just before Leonardo left Milan, and was possibly begun there. Scholars disagree on whether Robertet received his painting or not. In January 1507 Francesco Pandolfini, the Florentine ambassador to the French court in Blois, reported that “a little picture by [Leonardo’s] hand has recently been brought here and is held to be an excellent thing”. The Madonna does not, however, appear in a posthumous inventory of Robertet's collection made in 1532 (though the authenticity of the inventory has been called into question). One hypothesis holds that it passed from Robertet's collection into that of the French king, thus explaining its absence from the inventory. It is unclear, however, why it would have left the royal collection.In 1525 two inventories were drawn up of the possessions of Leonardo's assistant and heir Salaì, who died the preceding year. These mention a “Madonna with a Child in her Arms”. This is thought to be evidence that one of the prime versions of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder remained in Leonardo's possession while the other was sent to Robertet.Neither of the paintings accepted as prime versions has a provenance that can be traced back to Robertet or Salaì, or further back than the 18th century, though the Buccleuch Madonna was in France at that time. However, the Lansdowne Madonna could easily have been bought by its earliest known owners from a French collection in the period following the French Revolution, when many works with a French aristocratic provenance were bought by British collectors.

0990_T

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Focus on Madonna of the Yarnwinder and explain the Description.

The composition of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder shows the Christ child twisting his body away from his mother's embrace, his eye caught by her niddy-noddy whose arms (crosspieces) give it the shape of a cross; he precociously recognises it as a symbol of his destiny. The Virgin's reaction is ambiguous, a mixture of alarm at the harm her son will come to and resigned acceptance of it. The gesture of suspense made with her right hand is repeated from Leonardo's Milanese altarpiece The Virgin of the Rocks. The use of a symbol of the Passion as an object of childish play recurs throughout Leonardo's paintings, appearing for instance in the Benois Madonna and the Virgin and Child with St Anne. The depiction of the Virgin spinning also alludes to her antitype, Eve, who was sometimes portrayed spinning wool after her expulsion from Paradise, accompanied by her infant sons Cain and Abel. The iconography therefore recalls humanity's fall, its ensuing travails and its redemption through Christ's sacrifice.As with later works by Leonardo, the figures appear in a vast unpopulated landscape. The rocky outcrop in the foreground of the Buccleuch Madonna is painted with a minute attention to geological detail. A major difference between the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas is in their background landscapes. Whereas the background of the Buccleuch version is a watery landscape indifferently painted, that of the Lansdowne Madonna has a dramatic mountain range far more typical of Leonardo. It has been proposed that this is a specific location in the valley of the river Adda, as it runs from Lecco to Vaprio, an area familiar to Leonardo and which he mapped. It is possible that the landscape of the former picture was added by a pupil after Leonardo failed to complete the work. For Martin Kemp the “late” character of the landscape in the Lansdowne Madonna suggests that it was the later painting to be completed and that the Buccleuch Madonna was the one sent to Robertet in 1507.The underdrawings of both the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas show several features not in the finished works, but present in some copies; it is likely that these were originally copied from the prime versions during an early stage of the composition's development. One such feature, which appears in both underdrawings, is a group of figures identified as Saint Joseph making a baby walker for the Christ child, who appears with his mother and another female figure, probably a midwife. It has also been suggested that the child learning to walk is the infant John the Baptist, appearing with his mother Saint Elizabeth, as Leonardo would have been unlikely to depict the figures of Mary and Christ twice in the same painting. Leonardo also experimented with including some kind of beast of burden – a horse, ass or ox – which appears in different positions in the two underdrawings. Behind these an architectural structure with an arched opening was planned. At a later stage the landscape of the Buccleuch picture seems to have had a bridge like that of the Lansdowne Madonna, which was then painted over.

0990_NT

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Focus on this artwork and explain the Description.

The composition of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder shows the Christ child twisting his body away from his mother's embrace, his eye caught by her niddy-noddy whose arms (crosspieces) give it the shape of a cross; he precociously recognises it as a symbol of his destiny. The Virgin's reaction is ambiguous, a mixture of alarm at the harm her son will come to and resigned acceptance of it. The gesture of suspense made with her right hand is repeated from Leonardo's Milanese altarpiece The Virgin of the Rocks. The use of a symbol of the Passion as an object of childish play recurs throughout Leonardo's paintings, appearing for instance in the Benois Madonna and the Virgin and Child with St Anne. The depiction of the Virgin spinning also alludes to her antitype, Eve, who was sometimes portrayed spinning wool after her expulsion from Paradise, accompanied by her infant sons Cain and Abel. The iconography therefore recalls humanity's fall, its ensuing travails and its redemption through Christ's sacrifice.As with later works by Leonardo, the figures appear in a vast unpopulated landscape. The rocky outcrop in the foreground of the Buccleuch Madonna is painted with a minute attention to geological detail. A major difference between the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas is in their background landscapes. Whereas the background of the Buccleuch version is a watery landscape indifferently painted, that of the Lansdowne Madonna has a dramatic mountain range far more typical of Leonardo. It has been proposed that this is a specific location in the valley of the river Adda, as it runs from Lecco to Vaprio, an area familiar to Leonardo and which he mapped. It is possible that the landscape of the former picture was added by a pupil after Leonardo failed to complete the work. For Martin Kemp the “late” character of the landscape in the Lansdowne Madonna suggests that it was the later painting to be completed and that the Buccleuch Madonna was the one sent to Robertet in 1507.The underdrawings of both the Buccleuch and Lansdowne Madonnas show several features not in the finished works, but present in some copies; it is likely that these were originally copied from the prime versions during an early stage of the composition's development. One such feature, which appears in both underdrawings, is a group of figures identified as Saint Joseph making a baby walker for the Christ child, who appears with his mother and another female figure, probably a midwife. It has also been suggested that the child learning to walk is the infant John the Baptist, appearing with his mother Saint Elizabeth, as Leonardo would have been unlikely to depict the figures of Mary and Christ twice in the same painting. Leonardo also experimented with including some kind of beast of burden – a horse, ass or ox – which appears in different positions in the two underdrawings. Behind these an architectural structure with an arched opening was planned. At a later stage the landscape of the Buccleuch picture seems to have had a bridge like that of the Lansdowne Madonna, which was then painted over.

0991_T

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Explore the Buccleuch Madonna of this artwork, Madonna of the Yarnwinder.

The version of this painting often regarded as the most likely to be by Leonardo is now in the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh, on loan from the Duke of Buccleuch. It hung in his ancestral home in Drumlanrig Castle, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, until it was stolen in 2003. It entered the Buccleuch collection in 1767, with the marriage of the 3rd Duke to Lady Elizabeth Montagu, the heiress to a substantial collection of works assembled by her parents, the Duke and Duchess of Montagu. This Madonna of the Yarnwinder was bought at auction in Paris in 1756 from a sale of the collection of Marie-Joseph duc d’Hostun et de Tallard, its earliest documented owner.

0991_NT

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Explore the Buccleuch Madonna of this artwork.

The version of this painting often regarded as the most likely to be by Leonardo is now in the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh, on loan from the Duke of Buccleuch. It hung in his ancestral home in Drumlanrig Castle, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, until it was stolen in 2003. It entered the Buccleuch collection in 1767, with the marriage of the 3rd Duke to Lady Elizabeth Montagu, the heiress to a substantial collection of works assembled by her parents, the Duke and Duchess of Montagu. This Madonna of the Yarnwinder was bought at auction in Paris in 1756 from a sale of the collection of Marie-Joseph duc d’Hostun et de Tallard, its earliest documented owner.

0992_T

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

In the context of Madonna of the Yarnwinder, discuss the Theft and recovery of the Buccleuch Madonna.

In 2003 the Buccleuch Madonna was stolen from Drumlanrig Castle by two thieves posing as tourists, who said "Don't worry love, we're the police. This is just practice" to two tourists from New Zealand as they exited through a window carrying the Leonardo. In 2007 a chartered loss adjuster acting for the Duke of Buccleuch's insurers was contacted by an English lawyer, who claimed that he could arrange for the painting's return within 72 hours. The lawyer, Marshall Ronald of Skelmersdale, Lancashire, was visited by two undercover policemen who posed as an art expert and an agent for the Duke. The painting was then taken to a lawyer's office in Glasgow; this was raided by police officers from four anti-crime agencies during a meeting of five people. Four arrests were made, including of two solicitors from different firms. The Scotsman, describing the Glasgow firm as "one of the country's most successful and respected law firms", quoted a source as saying their arrested member "was not involved in any criminal act, but was acting as a go-between for two parties by scrutinizing a contract which would have allowed an English firm to 'secure legal repatriation' of the painting from an unidentified party."The 9th Duke of Buccleuch never lived to see the Madonna's recovery as he had died unexpectedly only a month beforehand. The painting was lent to the National Gallery of Scotland (now the Scottish National Gallery) in Edinburgh in 2009, and remains on display there as of 2020. In 2010 Ronald was cleared of the charge of holding the Duke to ransom; in 2013 he mounted legal action against the 10th Duke and the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway, demanding a reward of £4.25 million, which he claims he was promised in the meeting with the undercover policemen six years earlier. In 2015, the judge, Lord Brailsford, ruled these "arrangements were no more than a scheme designed and controlled by the police in an attempt to obtain the return of the stolen property" and rejected Ronald's claim against the Duke, who said "my involvement in supporting the 'sting' operation which involved an undercover police officer was entirely at the request of and under the direction of the police".

0992_NT

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

In the context of this artwork, discuss the Theft and recovery of the Buccleuch Madonna.

In 2003 the Buccleuch Madonna was stolen from Drumlanrig Castle by two thieves posing as tourists, who said "Don't worry love, we're the police. This is just practice" to two tourists from New Zealand as they exited through a window carrying the Leonardo. In 2007 a chartered loss adjuster acting for the Duke of Buccleuch's insurers was contacted by an English lawyer, who claimed that he could arrange for the painting's return within 72 hours. The lawyer, Marshall Ronald of Skelmersdale, Lancashire, was visited by two undercover policemen who posed as an art expert and an agent for the Duke. The painting was then taken to a lawyer's office in Glasgow; this was raided by police officers from four anti-crime agencies during a meeting of five people. Four arrests were made, including of two solicitors from different firms. The Scotsman, describing the Glasgow firm as "one of the country's most successful and respected law firms", quoted a source as saying their arrested member "was not involved in any criminal act, but was acting as a go-between for two parties by scrutinizing a contract which would have allowed an English firm to 'secure legal repatriation' of the painting from an unidentified party."The 9th Duke of Buccleuch never lived to see the Madonna's recovery as he had died unexpectedly only a month beforehand. The painting was lent to the National Gallery of Scotland (now the Scottish National Gallery) in Edinburgh in 2009, and remains on display there as of 2020. In 2010 Ronald was cleared of the charge of holding the Duke to ransom; in 2013 he mounted legal action against the 10th Duke and the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway, demanding a reward of £4.25 million, which he claims he was promised in the meeting with the undercover policemen six years earlier. In 2015, the judge, Lord Brailsford, ruled these "arrangements were no more than a scheme designed and controlled by the police in an attempt to obtain the return of the stolen property" and rejected Ronald's claim against the Duke, who said "my involvement in supporting the 'sting' operation which involved an undercover police officer was entirely at the request of and under the direction of the police".

0993_T

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

How does Madonna of the Yarnwinder elucidate its Lansdowne Madonna?

The painting sometimes considered the second prime version of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder takes its name from the Marquesses of Lansdowne, who owned it in the 19th century. John Henry Petty, then Earl Wycombe and later the 2nd Marquess of Lansdowne, bought it some time in or before 1809, possibly from the Earl of Darnley. It is first recorded in a sale of the Dowager Marchioness of Lansdowne's collection in 1833, from which it was withdrawn. The painting remained in her family until 1879, when her daughter sold it to Cyril Flower, later Lord Battersea. In 1908 the Madonna was bought from his widow by the Paris-based art dealers Nathan Wildenstein and René Gimpel. They consulted Bernard Berenson, the leading connoisseur of the day, on the attribution in 1909; he confirmed an earlier attribution to il Sodoma but thought that Leonardo had been responsible up to the cartoon stage. During restoration work in around 1911 the painting was transferred to canvas and several alterations were made, most significantly the removal of a loincloth covering the Child's genitals and the fingers of the Virgin's left hand.The painting was bought as a Sodoma in 1928 by Robert Wilson Reford, a Canadian industrialist and shipping magnate. In the 1930s it underwent X-ray and ultraviolet examination for the first time, led by a team which included the art historian Wilhelm Suida. He concluded that the Christ child and the landscape were by Leonardo and the remainder was by a Milanese pupil. During a loan to the New York World's Fair in 1939 the painting was damaged and further restoration work had to be undertaken. Reford's family put it up for auction in 1972, but by then the attribution had reverted to Sodoma, inevitably resulting in a lower price than had it been accepted as a Leonardo. It was bought back by Wildenstein & Company, who arranged for it to be transferred a second time, this time onto a composite panel, in 1976. They sold the Madonna (as a Leonardo) to its current owner, an anonymous private collector, in 1999.

0993_NT

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

How does this artwork elucidate its Lansdowne Madonna?

The painting sometimes considered the second prime version of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder takes its name from the Marquesses of Lansdowne, who owned it in the 19th century. John Henry Petty, then Earl Wycombe and later the 2nd Marquess of Lansdowne, bought it some time in or before 1809, possibly from the Earl of Darnley. It is first recorded in a sale of the Dowager Marchioness of Lansdowne's collection in 1833, from which it was withdrawn. The painting remained in her family until 1879, when her daughter sold it to Cyril Flower, later Lord Battersea. In 1908 the Madonna was bought from his widow by the Paris-based art dealers Nathan Wildenstein and René Gimpel. They consulted Bernard Berenson, the leading connoisseur of the day, on the attribution in 1909; he confirmed an earlier attribution to il Sodoma but thought that Leonardo had been responsible up to the cartoon stage. During restoration work in around 1911 the painting was transferred to canvas and several alterations were made, most significantly the removal of a loincloth covering the Child's genitals and the fingers of the Virgin's left hand.The painting was bought as a Sodoma in 1928 by Robert Wilson Reford, a Canadian industrialist and shipping magnate. In the 1930s it underwent X-ray and ultraviolet examination for the first time, led by a team which included the art historian Wilhelm Suida. He concluded that the Christ child and the landscape were by Leonardo and the remainder was by a Milanese pupil. During a loan to the New York World's Fair in 1939 the painting was damaged and further restoration work had to be undertaken. Reford's family put it up for auction in 1972, but by then the attribution had reverted to Sodoma, inevitably resulting in a lower price than had it been accepted as a Leonardo. It was bought back by Wildenstein & Company, who arranged for it to be transferred a second time, this time onto a composite panel, in 1976. They sold the Madonna (as a Leonardo) to its current owner, an anonymous private collector, in 1999.

0994_T

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Focus on Madonna of the Yarnwinder and analyze the Influence and copies.

Nearly forty versions of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder made by pupils and followers of Leonardo survive today. Many show elements which were discarded as the prime version, or versions, evolved over a long period of time. Some include the figure group in the middle ground visible in the Buccleuch and Lansdowne underdrawings; others show the basket of wool described by Fra Pietro da Novellara, though to Christ's side rather than beneath his foot. Eight paintings, including the copy in the Louvre, show a different kind of rocky outcrop in the foreground from those in the prime versions; many of these are probably by Lombard Leonardeschi. Some artists elaborated on Leonardo's composition with the addition of still lives or extra figures.The Madonna of the Yarnwinder’s composition was especially popular in Spain, where it might have been brought over by Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina or Hernando de los Llanos (whose name also appears as Fernando de Llanos). Both painters were trained in Florence in the first years of the 16th century, and either might be the “Ferrando spagnolo” mentioned as a pupil of Leonardo when the master was working on the fresco of the Battle of Anghiari in the Palazzo della Signoria in 1505.

0994_NT

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Focus on this artwork and analyze the Influence and copies.

Nearly forty versions of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder made by pupils and followers of Leonardo survive today. Many show elements which were discarded as the prime version, or versions, evolved over a long period of time. Some include the figure group in the middle ground visible in the Buccleuch and Lansdowne underdrawings; others show the basket of wool described by Fra Pietro da Novellara, though to Christ's side rather than beneath his foot. Eight paintings, including the copy in the Louvre, show a different kind of rocky outcrop in the foreground from those in the prime versions; many of these are probably by Lombard Leonardeschi. Some artists elaborated on Leonardo's composition with the addition of still lives or extra figures.The Madonna of the Yarnwinder’s composition was especially popular in Spain, where it might have been brought over by Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina or Hernando de los Llanos (whose name also appears as Fernando de Llanos). Both painters were trained in Florence in the first years of the 16th century, and either might be the “Ferrando spagnolo” mentioned as a pupil of Leonardo when the master was working on the fresco of the Battle of Anghiari in the Palazzo della Signoria in 1505.

0995_T

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Describe the characteristics of the List of copies in Madonna of the Yarnwinder's Influence and copies.

Madonna of the Yarnwinder (drawing after Leonardo), Uffizi, Florence. Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon. Madonna with the Yarnwinder, formerly Wood Prince Collection, Chicago. Attributed to Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina, Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Scottish National Gallery, Edinburgh. Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina, The Holy Family (1523), formerly in the Carlos Grether collection, Buenos Aires Attributed to Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina, Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Museo de Bellas Artes, Murcia Attributed to Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina, Madonna and Child with the Infant St John (c. 1505), National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. Hernando de los Llanos, Rest on the Flight into Egypt (1507), Valencia Cathedral. Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, MA Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Granada Cathedral. Madonna of the Yarnwinder (c. 1510–30), Apsley House, London. Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Museo Soumaya, Mexico City. Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Prince's Palace of Monaco. Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Wittelsbacher Ausgleichsfonds, Munich. Madonna of the Yarnwinder in a Rocky Landscape, Christ Church Picture Gallery, Oxford. Madonna of the Yarnwinder (c. 1510–20), Louvre, Paris. Madonna of the Yarnwinder, follower of Leonardo da Vinci, circa 1500, unfinished. Private collection, Italy. Madonna of the Yarnwinder (19th century), Penrith and Eden Museum, Penrith. Attributed to Cesare da Sesto, Madonna of the Yarnwinder, two versions in private collections. Attributed to Cornelius van Cleve, Madonna of the Yarnwinder, private collection. Madonna of the Yarnwinder with Cherries and an Apple, three versions in private collections. Attributed to Martino Piazza da Lodi, Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, Rome. Madonna of the Yarnwinder with St John, Tobias and the Angel and a Fruit Bowl, Museo de Bellas Artes, Córdoba. Luis de Morales, Madonna of the Yarnwinder (1560s), Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Luis de Morales, Madonna of the Yarnwinder (1560s), Royal Palace of Madrid. Luis de Morales, Madonna of the Yarnwinder (1560s), Hispanic Society of America, New York City. Luis de Morales, Madonna of the Yarnwinder (1560s), Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg. Madonna of the Yarnwinder (first decade of the 16th century), Museo Palazzo Costa, Piacenza.

0995_NT

Madonna of the Yarnwinder

Describe the characteristics of the List of copies in this artwork's Influence and copies.

Madonna of the Yarnwinder (drawing after Leonardo), Uffizi, Florence. Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon. Madonna with the Yarnwinder, formerly Wood Prince Collection, Chicago. Attributed to Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina, Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Scottish National Gallery, Edinburgh. Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina, The Holy Family (1523), formerly in the Carlos Grether collection, Buenos Aires Attributed to Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina, Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Museo de Bellas Artes, Murcia Attributed to Fernando Yáñez de la Almedina, Madonna and Child with the Infant St John (c. 1505), National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. Hernando de los Llanos, Rest on the Flight into Egypt (1507), Valencia Cathedral. Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, MA Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Granada Cathedral. Madonna of the Yarnwinder (c. 1510–30), Apsley House, London. Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Museo Soumaya, Mexico City. Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Prince's Palace of Monaco. Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Wittelsbacher Ausgleichsfonds, Munich. Madonna of the Yarnwinder in a Rocky Landscape, Christ Church Picture Gallery, Oxford. Madonna of the Yarnwinder (c. 1510–20), Louvre, Paris. Madonna of the Yarnwinder, follower of Leonardo da Vinci, circa 1500, unfinished. Private collection, Italy. Madonna of the Yarnwinder (19th century), Penrith and Eden Museum, Penrith. Attributed to Cesare da Sesto, Madonna of the Yarnwinder, two versions in private collections. Attributed to Cornelius van Cleve, Madonna of the Yarnwinder, private collection. Madonna of the Yarnwinder with Cherries and an Apple, three versions in private collections. Attributed to Martino Piazza da Lodi, Madonna of the Yarnwinder, Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, Rome. Madonna of the Yarnwinder with St John, Tobias and the Angel and a Fruit Bowl, Museo de Bellas Artes, Córdoba. Luis de Morales, Madonna of the Yarnwinder (1560s), Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Luis de Morales, Madonna of the Yarnwinder (1560s), Royal Palace of Madrid. Luis de Morales, Madonna of the Yarnwinder (1560s), Hispanic Society of America, New York City. Luis de Morales, Madonna of the Yarnwinder (1560s), Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg. Madonna of the Yarnwinder (first decade of the 16th century), Museo Palazzo Costa, Piacenza.

0996_T

Relief depicting a Roman legionary (Berlin SK 887)

Focus on Relief depicting a Roman legionary (Berlin SK 887) and explore the abstract.

A Relief depicting a Roman legionary (German: Relief mit der Darstellung eines römischen Legionärs) is located in the Pergamonmuseum and belongs to the Antikensammlung Berlin. The relief was created at the end of the first century AD and was discovered in 1800 at Pozzuoli. The relief is 159 cm high and 86 cm wide and is made of grey-blue marble. It depicts a Roman Praetorian, a member of the Roman elite forces and bodyguard of the Emperor. He wears a Tunica with the Paenula (a cone-shaped cloak made of linen or wool) over it. The tunica is pulled up to knee height by a belt (cingulum), part of which can be seen poking out from under the paenula. He carries a small shield, called a parma, under his left arm and his sword hangs over his shoulder on the other side. In his hand he holds a short javelin. The praetorian is carved from the background in very high relief. The left edge of the frame had to be restored, but the right and upper edges mostly survive in the original. The relief probably belonged to a triangular base. Sculpture on display in the University Museum of Philadelphia might be fragments of the other two sides. On one of these another praetorian is depicted and on the third there are two legionaries from the northern auxiliaries. It is suggested that this base supported an equestrian statue of the Emperor Domitian, which would have been reworked into a Triumphal arch for Trajan at Puteoli after Domitian's death and damnatio memoriae. The relief was found at Puteoli in 1800 and acquired for Berlin at Rome in 1830.

0996_NT

Relief depicting a Roman legionary (Berlin SK 887)

Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract.

A Relief depicting a Roman legionary (German: Relief mit der Darstellung eines römischen Legionärs) is located in the Pergamonmuseum and belongs to the Antikensammlung Berlin. The relief was created at the end of the first century AD and was discovered in 1800 at Pozzuoli. The relief is 159 cm high and 86 cm wide and is made of grey-blue marble. It depicts a Roman Praetorian, a member of the Roman elite forces and bodyguard of the Emperor. He wears a Tunica with the Paenula (a cone-shaped cloak made of linen or wool) over it. The tunica is pulled up to knee height by a belt (cingulum), part of which can be seen poking out from under the paenula. He carries a small shield, called a parma, under his left arm and his sword hangs over his shoulder on the other side. In his hand he holds a short javelin. The praetorian is carved from the background in very high relief. The left edge of the frame had to be restored, but the right and upper edges mostly survive in the original. The relief probably belonged to a triangular base. Sculpture on display in the University Museum of Philadelphia might be fragments of the other two sides. On one of these another praetorian is depicted and on the third there are two legionaries from the northern auxiliaries. It is suggested that this base supported an equestrian statue of the Emperor Domitian, which would have been reworked into a Triumphal arch for Trajan at Puteoli after Domitian's death and damnatio memoriae. The relief was found at Puteoli in 1800 and acquired for Berlin at Rome in 1830.

0997_T

The Great Day of His Wrath

Focus on The Great Day of His Wrath and explain the Description.

According to Frances Carey, Deputy Keeper in the Department of Prints and Drawings, British Museum, the painting shows the destruction of Babylon and the material world by natural cataclysm. William Feaver, art critic of The Observer, believes that this painting pictures the collapse of Edinburgh in Scotland. Calton Hill, Arthur's Seat, and the Castle Rock, Feaver says, are falling together into the valley between them. However, Charles F. Stuckey, professor of Art History, Theory, and Criticism at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, is skeptical about such connections, arguing that it has not been conclusively proved. Michael Freeman, Supernumerary Fellow and Lecturer in Human Geography at Mansfield College, describes the painting as follows: Storms and volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and other natural disasters 'swept like tidal waves through early nineteenth-century periodicals, broadsheets and panoramas'. Catastrophic and apocalyptic visions acquired a remarkable common currency, the Malthusian spectre a constant reminder of the need for atonement. For some onlookers, Martin's most famous canvases of divine revelation seemed simultaneously to encode new geological and astronomical truths. This was ... powerfully demonstrated in The Great Day of his Wrath (1852), in which the Edinburgh of James Hutton, with its grand citadel, hilltop terraces and spectacular volcanic landscape, explodes outwards and appears suspended upside-down, flags still flying from its buildings and before crashing head-on into the valley below. According to the Tate Gallery, the United Kingdom's national museum of British and Modern Art, the painting closely follows a portion of Revelation 6, a chapter from the New Testament of the Bible:

0997_NT

The Great Day of His Wrath

Focus on this artwork and explain the Description.

According to Frances Carey, Deputy Keeper in the Department of Prints and Drawings, British Museum, the painting shows the destruction of Babylon and the material world by natural cataclysm. William Feaver, art critic of The Observer, believes that this painting pictures the collapse of Edinburgh in Scotland. Calton Hill, Arthur's Seat, and the Castle Rock, Feaver says, are falling together into the valley between them. However, Charles F. Stuckey, professor of Art History, Theory, and Criticism at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, is skeptical about such connections, arguing that it has not been conclusively proved. Michael Freeman, Supernumerary Fellow and Lecturer in Human Geography at Mansfield College, describes the painting as follows: Storms and volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and other natural disasters 'swept like tidal waves through early nineteenth-century periodicals, broadsheets and panoramas'. Catastrophic and apocalyptic visions acquired a remarkable common currency, the Malthusian spectre a constant reminder of the need for atonement. For some onlookers, Martin's most famous canvases of divine revelation seemed simultaneously to encode new geological and astronomical truths. This was ... powerfully demonstrated in The Great Day of his Wrath (1852), in which the Edinburgh of James Hutton, with its grand citadel, hilltop terraces and spectacular volcanic landscape, explodes outwards and appears suspended upside-down, flags still flying from its buildings and before crashing head-on into the valley below. According to the Tate Gallery, the United Kingdom's national museum of British and Modern Art, the painting closely follows a portion of Revelation 6, a chapter from the New Testament of the Bible:

0998_T

The Great Day of His Wrath

Explore the Martin's death and exhibitions of the painting of this artwork, The Great Day of His Wrath.

While painting, on 12 November 1853, Martin suffered an attack of paralysis, now thought to have been a stroke. The attack deprived him of the ability to talk and to control his right arm, and he died at Douglas on 17 February 1854. At the time of his death, his partially unfinished three paintings were being exhibited in Newcastle. After Martin's death, his last pictures (including The End of the World) were exhibited in "London and the chief cities in England attracting great crowds". The painting was engraved in 1854 (after Martin's death) by Thomas McLean, together with two other paintings by Martin, Plains of Heaven and The Last Judgment (a group of three 'judgment pictures'). Despite wide public reception, the three paintings were rejected as vulgar by the Royal Academy. In 1945, the painting was purchased by the Tate from Robert Frank.

0998_NT

The Great Day of His Wrath

Explore the Martin's death and exhibitions of the painting of this artwork.

While painting, on 12 November 1853, Martin suffered an attack of paralysis, now thought to have been a stroke. The attack deprived him of the ability to talk and to control his right arm, and he died at Douglas on 17 February 1854. At the time of his death, his partially unfinished three paintings were being exhibited in Newcastle. After Martin's death, his last pictures (including The End of the World) were exhibited in "London and the chief cities in England attracting great crowds". The painting was engraved in 1854 (after Martin's death) by Thomas McLean, together with two other paintings by Martin, Plains of Heaven and The Last Judgment (a group of three 'judgment pictures'). Despite wide public reception, the three paintings were rejected as vulgar by the Royal Academy. In 1945, the painting was purchased by the Tate from Robert Frank.

0999_T

Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But...

Focus on Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But... and discuss the abstract.

Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But... (sometimes Oh, Jeff) is a 1964 oil and magna on canvas painting by Roy Lichtenstein. Like many of Lichtenstein's works its title comes from the speech balloon in the painting. Although many sources, such as the Encyclopedia of Art, describe Whaam! and Drowning Girl as Lichtenstein's most famous works, artist Vian Shamounki Borchert believes it is this piece, calling it his Mona Lisa. Borchert notes that this painting captures "the magic" of its "anguished and yes [sic] beautiful blue eyed, blond hair, full lips" female subject while presenting "sad eyes that seem to give in to what seems to be a doomed love affair".Measuring 121.9 cm × 121.9 cm (48 in × 48 in), Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But... is among the most famous of his early romance comic derivative works from the period when he was adapting cartoons and advertisements into his style via Ben-Day dots. The work is said to depict the classic romance-comic story line of temporary adversity. Lichtenstein's sketch for this was done in graphite and colored pencils on paper in a 4 3/4 x 4 3/4 inches (12.1 x 12.1 cm) scale.In the early 1960s, Lichtenstein produced several "fantasy drama" paintings of women in love affairs with domineering men causing women to be miserable, such as Drowning Girl, Hopeless and In the Car. These works served as prelude to 1964 paintings of innocent "girls next door" in a variety of tenuous emotional states such as in Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But.... Using only a single frame from its source, Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But...'s graphics are quite indicative of frustration, but the text in the speech balloon augment the romantic context and the emotional discord. After 1963, Lichtenstein's comics-based women "...look hard, crisp, brittle, and uniformly modish in appearance, as if they all came out of the same pot of makeup." This particular example is one of several that is cropped so closely that the hair flows beyond the edges of the canvas. This was painted at the apex of Lichtenstein's use of enlarged dots, cropping and magnification of the original source. The tragic situations of his subjects makes his works a popular draw at museums.The painting was sold for $210,000 (US$746,000 in 2022 dollars) on May 15, 1980 at Sotheby's, New York. At the time, the work was part of the Abrams family collection. As of February 3, 1994, the Los Angeles Times reported that it was part of the Stefan Edlis Collection.

0999_NT

Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But...

Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract.

Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But... (sometimes Oh, Jeff) is a 1964 oil and magna on canvas painting by Roy Lichtenstein. Like many of Lichtenstein's works its title comes from the speech balloon in the painting. Although many sources, such as the Encyclopedia of Art, describe Whaam! and Drowning Girl as Lichtenstein's most famous works, artist Vian Shamounki Borchert believes it is this piece, calling it his Mona Lisa. Borchert notes that this painting captures "the magic" of its "anguished and yes [sic] beautiful blue eyed, blond hair, full lips" female subject while presenting "sad eyes that seem to give in to what seems to be a doomed love affair".Measuring 121.9 cm × 121.9 cm (48 in × 48 in), Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But... is among the most famous of his early romance comic derivative works from the period when he was adapting cartoons and advertisements into his style via Ben-Day dots. The work is said to depict the classic romance-comic story line of temporary adversity. Lichtenstein's sketch for this was done in graphite and colored pencils on paper in a 4 3/4 x 4 3/4 inches (12.1 x 12.1 cm) scale.In the early 1960s, Lichtenstein produced several "fantasy drama" paintings of women in love affairs with domineering men causing women to be miserable, such as Drowning Girl, Hopeless and In the Car. These works served as prelude to 1964 paintings of innocent "girls next door" in a variety of tenuous emotional states such as in Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But.... Using only a single frame from its source, Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But...'s graphics are quite indicative of frustration, but the text in the speech balloon augment the romantic context and the emotional discord. After 1963, Lichtenstein's comics-based women "...look hard, crisp, brittle, and uniformly modish in appearance, as if they all came out of the same pot of makeup." This particular example is one of several that is cropped so closely that the hair flows beyond the edges of the canvas. This was painted at the apex of Lichtenstein's use of enlarged dots, cropping and magnification of the original source. The tragic situations of his subjects makes his works a popular draw at museums.The painting was sold for $210,000 (US$746,000 in 2022 dollars) on May 15, 1980 at Sotheby's, New York. At the time, the work was part of the Abrams family collection. As of February 3, 1994, the Los Angeles Times reported that it was part of the Stefan Edlis Collection.

1000_T

Statue of Lucas Sullivant

How does Statue of Lucas Sullivant elucidate its abstract?

A statue of Lucas Sullivant by Michael Foley is installed in Columbus, Ohio's Genoa Park, in the United States. The sculpture was commissioned by the Franklinton Historical Society in 2000, and unveiled on May 6. The plinth depicts scenes from Franklinton's origins.

1000_NT

Statue of Lucas Sullivant

How does this artwork elucidate its abstract?

A statue of Lucas Sullivant by Michael Foley is installed in Columbus, Ohio's Genoa Park, in the United States. The sculpture was commissioned by the Franklinton Historical Society in 2000, and unveiled on May 6. The plinth depicts scenes from Franklinton's origins.