Datasets:

naist-nlp

/

ExpArt

like 3

18751_T

The Greek Slave

Focus on The Greek Slave and analyze the Exhibition Precedents.

Before the exhibition of Hiram Power’s The Greek Slave, many artists had unsuccessfully attempted to display artwork and sculpture in America that featured nude figures. For example, Horatio Greenough’s Chanting Cherubs depicted two nude figures, which revealed the discomfort Americans felt towards nudity. In Boston, objections to the nudity in the work led to the temporary addition of tiny aprons on the cherubs. In 1829 Greenough disappointedly wrote, “I thought the country beyond that; there is a nudity which is not pure” (Quoted in Pohrt 2016, 188). This was a shocking revelation to the art community and revealed strict perceptions about nudity for American viewers. It is especially surprising because the two figures were putti or baby angels. Despite having religious overtones, the figures were still deemed unacceptable. Power’s The Greek Slave was designed with the sensitive perceptions of the American public in mind. Powers intentionally designed the sculpture to be a visually acceptable and logistically sound work. The sculpture needed to be practical in shape and size so by making it with reasonable dimensions, it could be easily boxed up and shipped across the country (Pohrt 2016, 189). He designed the sculpture to fit upon and within the diameter of its pedestal. Powers also knew of Americans’ distaste for nude figures after Greenough’s failings. As a result, he chose to design a slender nude female figure, but with a unique and captivating narrative. The work featured a detailed iconography with chains, crucifixes, and a locket. These images solidified the woman’s identity as a Christian and a slave that was being forcefully stripped of her clothes (Pohrt 2016, 187). These features helped set the stage for viewers to be at ease and appreciate the work’s beautiful aesthetic features.

18751_NT

The Greek Slave

Focus on this artwork and analyze the Exhibition Precedents.

Before the exhibition of Hiram Power’s The Greek Slave, many artists had unsuccessfully attempted to display artwork and sculpture in America that featured nude figures. For example, Horatio Greenough’s Chanting Cherubs depicted two nude figures, which revealed the discomfort Americans felt towards nudity. In Boston, objections to the nudity in the work led to the temporary addition of tiny aprons on the cherubs. In 1829 Greenough disappointedly wrote, “I thought the country beyond that; there is a nudity which is not pure” (Quoted in Pohrt 2016, 188). This was a shocking revelation to the art community and revealed strict perceptions about nudity for American viewers. It is especially surprising because the two figures were putti or baby angels. Despite having religious overtones, the figures were still deemed unacceptable. Power’s The Greek Slave was designed with the sensitive perceptions of the American public in mind. Powers intentionally designed the sculpture to be a visually acceptable and logistically sound work. The sculpture needed to be practical in shape and size so by making it with reasonable dimensions, it could be easily boxed up and shipped across the country (Pohrt 2016, 189). He designed the sculpture to fit upon and within the diameter of its pedestal. Powers also knew of Americans’ distaste for nude figures after Greenough’s failings. As a result, he chose to design a slender nude female figure, but with a unique and captivating narrative. The work featured a detailed iconography with chains, crucifixes, and a locket. These images solidified the woman’s identity as a Christian and a slave that was being forcefully stripped of her clothes (Pohrt 2016, 187). These features helped set the stage for viewers to be at ease and appreciate the work’s beautiful aesthetic features.

18752_T

The Greek Slave

In The Greek Slave, how is the Public reaction discussed?

Public reaction to the statue was mixed. When the work was first exhibited, many people were scandalized by the figure's nudity; Powers countered much of this criticism by suggesting that the young woman was a perfect example of Christian purity and chastity, because even in her unclothed state she was attempting to shield herself from the gaze of onlookers. Furthermore, he said, her nudity was no fault of her own, but rather was caused by her Turkish captors, who stripped her to display her for sale. So well did this reasoning work that many Christian pastors would exhort their congregations to go and see the statue when it was displayed.Some viewers also drew parallels between The Greek Slave and the slaves who were concurrently working on the plantations of the American South. Such parallels were initially lost upon much of the statue's American audience, but as the American Civil War neared, abolitionists began to take the piece as a symbol. It was not difficult to make the leap from a contemplation of the Ancient Greek slave's circumstances and contemporary American slavery. African American abolitionist, writer, and former slave, William Wells Brown emphasized the comparison by placing an engraving entitled "The Virginian Slave," a depiction of an enslaved black woman, at the feet of Powers's statue. The comparison was, as well, the subject of a poem by John Greenleaf Whittier. Additionally, the statue inspired a sonnet by Elizabeth Barrett Browning called "Hiram Powers' Greek Slave". Abolitionist Maria White Lowell wrote that The Greek Slave "was a vision of beauty that one must always look back to the first time of seeing it as an era". In 1848, while walking through Boston Common, Lucy Stone stopped to admire the statue and broke into tears, seeing in its chains the symbol of man's oppression of the female sex. From that day forward, Stone included women's rights issues in her speeches.

18752_NT

The Greek Slave

In this artwork, how is the Public reaction discussed?

Public reaction to the statue was mixed. When the work was first exhibited, many people were scandalized by the figure's nudity; Powers countered much of this criticism by suggesting that the young woman was a perfect example of Christian purity and chastity, because even in her unclothed state she was attempting to shield herself from the gaze of onlookers. Furthermore, he said, her nudity was no fault of her own, but rather was caused by her Turkish captors, who stripped her to display her for sale. So well did this reasoning work that many Christian pastors would exhort their congregations to go and see the statue when it was displayed.Some viewers also drew parallels between The Greek Slave and the slaves who were concurrently working on the plantations of the American South. Such parallels were initially lost upon much of the statue's American audience, but as the American Civil War neared, abolitionists began to take the piece as a symbol. It was not difficult to make the leap from a contemplation of the Ancient Greek slave's circumstances and contemporary American slavery. African American abolitionist, writer, and former slave, William Wells Brown emphasized the comparison by placing an engraving entitled "The Virginian Slave," a depiction of an enslaved black woman, at the feet of Powers's statue. The comparison was, as well, the subject of a poem by John Greenleaf Whittier. Additionally, the statue inspired a sonnet by Elizabeth Barrett Browning called "Hiram Powers' Greek Slave". Abolitionist Maria White Lowell wrote that The Greek Slave "was a vision of beauty that one must always look back to the first time of seeing it as an era". In 1848, while walking through Boston Common, Lucy Stone stopped to admire the statue and broke into tears, seeing in its chains the symbol of man's oppression of the female sex. From that day forward, Stone included women's rights issues in her speeches.

18753_T

The Greek Slave

Focus on The Greek Slave and explore the Operation Dynamics.

A great deal of organization and logistics were conducted to ensure that Powers’ The Greek Slave was viewed by spectators from across the country. In Powers’ mind there was no other man more fit for this task than fellow artist, Miner Kellogg (1814-1889). Kellogg had traveled to Turkey and Greece to study the history and culture of the region in preparation for the tour (Pohrt 2016, 190). Kellogg was a knowledgeable and trustworthy showman who managed everything from securing venues to purchasing fabrics and having a platform built to display the sculpture (Pohrt 2016, 191). He was a skilled businessman whose management skill and resourcefulness help attract the masses. Powers, who remained in Italy while his sculpture toured the US, compensated Kellogg for the exhibition by giving him 20% of the work’s net profits with the understanding that if travel expenses rose above $10,000, he was responsible for the difference. Kellogg’s early press material justified Powers’ absence by describing him as a dedicated artist who was “toiling” in Italy (Pohrt 2016, 192).Furthermore, Kellogg promoted or advertised the work through a variety of media. For example, he reprinted an essay by the Reverend Orville Dewey that emphasized the work’s formal and iconographic qualities in a more pure and unadulterated light. Dewey wrote, “clothed all over with sentiment, sheltered, protected by it from every profane eye” (Quoted in Pohrt 2016, 193). Dewey’s writings significantly contributed to the exhibition’s descriptive brochure. Kellogg created a brochure with the help of George Calvert (1580-1632) and Henry Tuckerman (1813-1871) to help viewers understand the sculpture. The brochure featured a narrative of a Greek woman who was taken captive by the Turks, forcefully exposed and then sold as a slave in Constantinople (Pohrt 2016, 193). This narrative was designed to evoke sentiment in its viewers, which was a popular theme for American art at the time and something viewers would easily resonate with. Power described it stating, are not satisfied with designating its material perfection, but eloquently claim for its high moral and intellectual beauty” (Wunder, 1991). Ultimately, the sculpture was a success because viewers could comfortably view the work and appreciate the artist’s skill as well as the sculpture’s unique narrative.

18753_NT

The Greek Slave

Focus on this artwork and explore the Operation Dynamics.

A great deal of organization and logistics were conducted to ensure that Powers’ The Greek Slave was viewed by spectators from across the country. In Powers’ mind there was no other man more fit for this task than fellow artist, Miner Kellogg (1814-1889). Kellogg had traveled to Turkey and Greece to study the history and culture of the region in preparation for the tour (Pohrt 2016, 190). Kellogg was a knowledgeable and trustworthy showman who managed everything from securing venues to purchasing fabrics and having a platform built to display the sculpture (Pohrt 2016, 191). He was a skilled businessman whose management skill and resourcefulness help attract the masses. Powers, who remained in Italy while his sculpture toured the US, compensated Kellogg for the exhibition by giving him 20% of the work’s net profits with the understanding that if travel expenses rose above $10,000, he was responsible for the difference. Kellogg’s early press material justified Powers’ absence by describing him as a dedicated artist who was “toiling” in Italy (Pohrt 2016, 192).Furthermore, Kellogg promoted or advertised the work through a variety of media. For example, he reprinted an essay by the Reverend Orville Dewey that emphasized the work’s formal and iconographic qualities in a more pure and unadulterated light. Dewey wrote, “clothed all over with sentiment, sheltered, protected by it from every profane eye” (Quoted in Pohrt 2016, 193). Dewey’s writings significantly contributed to the exhibition’s descriptive brochure. Kellogg created a brochure with the help of George Calvert (1580-1632) and Henry Tuckerman (1813-1871) to help viewers understand the sculpture. The brochure featured a narrative of a Greek woman who was taken captive by the Turks, forcefully exposed and then sold as a slave in Constantinople (Pohrt 2016, 193). This narrative was designed to evoke sentiment in its viewers, which was a popular theme for American art at the time and something viewers would easily resonate with. Power described it stating, are not satisfied with designating its material perfection, but eloquently claim for its high moral and intellectual beauty” (Wunder, 1991). Ultimately, the sculpture was a success because viewers could comfortably view the work and appreciate the artist’s skill as well as the sculpture’s unique narrative.

18754_T

The Greek Slave

Focus on The Greek Slave and explain the Fabrication technique.

Powers conceived of the Greek Slave as an artwork that would be produced in one or more finished marble statues, a common practice in nineteenth-century sculpture studios. He and his contemporaries rarely carved the final marble products themselves, relying instead on teams of skilled artisans to produce the finished works on their behalf. After he completed a full-scale clay model of the sculpture in his studio in Florence, Powers gave the model over to professional plaster casters. The casters created a multi-part plaster mold, which was used in turn to cast a durable plaster version of the sculpture. Metal armatures inside the form provided support; these can now be seen in modern x-ray images. Master carvers then used the durable plaster cast as a measuring tool, covering the surface of the plaster cast with hundreds of pencil marks and metal pins, or points, which served as registration marks for a pointing machine. The pointing machine was moved repeatedly from the points on the plaster cast to corresponding areas on a block of marble to guide the carver's tools as he translated the composition into marble. The tool would then be moved, over and over again, hundreds of times, from the points on the plaster to the corresponding locations on the block of marble. Each time, the tool would measure the depth and location on the marble block, creating a three-dimensional guide that helped the marble carver replicate the artist's original form more quickly and with greater ease. When creating the finished marble versions, fine details such as the cross, locket, and chains were finalised, and differ slightly among the marble versions. The Smithsonian American Art Museum holds the original 1843 pointed-plaster mold, along with numerous smaller casts from Powers' studio.

18754_NT

The Greek Slave

Focus on this artwork and explain the Fabrication technique.

Powers conceived of the Greek Slave as an artwork that would be produced in one or more finished marble statues, a common practice in nineteenth-century sculpture studios. He and his contemporaries rarely carved the final marble products themselves, relying instead on teams of skilled artisans to produce the finished works on their behalf. After he completed a full-scale clay model of the sculpture in his studio in Florence, Powers gave the model over to professional plaster casters. The casters created a multi-part plaster mold, which was used in turn to cast a durable plaster version of the sculpture. Metal armatures inside the form provided support; these can now be seen in modern x-ray images. Master carvers then used the durable plaster cast as a measuring tool, covering the surface of the plaster cast with hundreds of pencil marks and metal pins, or points, which served as registration marks for a pointing machine. The pointing machine was moved repeatedly from the points on the plaster cast to corresponding areas on a block of marble to guide the carver's tools as he translated the composition into marble. The tool would then be moved, over and over again, hundreds of times, from the points on the plaster to the corresponding locations on the block of marble. Each time, the tool would measure the depth and location on the marble block, creating a three-dimensional guide that helped the marble carver replicate the artist's original form more quickly and with greater ease. When creating the finished marble versions, fine details such as the cross, locket, and chains were finalised, and differ slightly among the marble versions. The Smithsonian American Art Museum holds the original 1843 pointed-plaster mold, along with numerous smaller casts from Powers' studio.

18755_T

The Greek Slave

Explore the Versions of the artwork of this artwork, The Greek Slave.

Powers' studio produced five full-scale marble versions of the Greek Slave. Nearly identical, each one was made for sale to a different private collector. An Englishman purchased the first of the large marble versions (now at Raby Castle), and it was exhibited publicly in London in 1845 at Graves' Pall Mall. In 1851, it was featured by the U.S. at The Great Exhibition in London, and four years later was shown in Paris. The second was purchased by William Wilson Corcoran in 1851, and entered into the collection of the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.; with the 2014 dispersal of the Corcoran collection, the statue was acquired by the National Gallery of Art.Many smaller marble copies of the statue exist, including a 3⁄4-sized marble in the Smithsonian American Art Museum, as well as versions in the Vermont State House, at the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and the Westervelt Warner Museum of American Art in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.The English potters Mintons produced much-reduced (14 1/2 inches high) copies in Parian ware from 1848. From 1849 the chains between the slave's hands were not shown, probably to save costs in production.In 2004, Vermont Governor James Douglas ordered the removal from his office of a small lamp replicating the artwork, citing fears that schoolchildren might see it.

18755_NT

The Greek Slave

Explore the Versions of the artwork of this artwork.

Powers' studio produced five full-scale marble versions of the Greek Slave. Nearly identical, each one was made for sale to a different private collector. An Englishman purchased the first of the large marble versions (now at Raby Castle), and it was exhibited publicly in London in 1845 at Graves' Pall Mall. In 1851, it was featured by the U.S. at The Great Exhibition in London, and four years later was shown in Paris. The second was purchased by William Wilson Corcoran in 1851, and entered into the collection of the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.; with the 2014 dispersal of the Corcoran collection, the statue was acquired by the National Gallery of Art.Many smaller marble copies of the statue exist, including a 3⁄4-sized marble in the Smithsonian American Art Museum, as well as versions in the Vermont State House, at the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and the Westervelt Warner Museum of American Art in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.The English potters Mintons produced much-reduced (14 1/2 inches high) copies in Parian ware from 1848. From 1849 the chains between the slave's hands were not shown, probably to save costs in production.In 2004, Vermont Governor James Douglas ordered the removal from his office of a small lamp replicating the artwork, citing fears that schoolchildren might see it.

18756_T

The Greek Slave

Focus on The Greek Slave and discuss the Artist and Agent Relationship.

By the end of the tour, Miner Kellogg was quite depleted after frequently traveling, and it had taken a toll on his relationship with Hiram Powers. There had been frequent disputes over traveling expenses and battles over ownership of the sculpture (Pohrt 2016, 195). It could have been argued that Kellogg felt entitled to more compensation than he had received after traveled across the continental U.S. for nearly 5 years. It could have also been fair to say that the agent had grown attached to the sculpture. There was an underlying resentment between the two men because Kellogg had dedicated so much of his life to the work’s success. Additionally, there were outstanding issues such as a lawsuit with the Pennsylvania Academy over exhibition proceeds. Powers himself did not receive the contested money from the Pennsylvania Academy until 1858, after several additional court rulings. This issue caused negative press, and these issues might have been avoided if Kellogg had negotiated more skillfully (Pohrt 2016, 196). This lawsuit only served to deepen the growing rift between the two men because each felt that they were slighted by the other. Ultimately, their relationship fell apart due to their financial differences, legal disputes, and shared legacy of The Greek Slave.

18756_NT

The Greek Slave

Focus on this artwork and discuss the Artist and Agent Relationship.

By the end of the tour, Miner Kellogg was quite depleted after frequently traveling, and it had taken a toll on his relationship with Hiram Powers. There had been frequent disputes over traveling expenses and battles over ownership of the sculpture (Pohrt 2016, 195). It could have been argued that Kellogg felt entitled to more compensation than he had received after traveled across the continental U.S. for nearly 5 years. It could have also been fair to say that the agent had grown attached to the sculpture. There was an underlying resentment between the two men because Kellogg had dedicated so much of his life to the work’s success. Additionally, there were outstanding issues such as a lawsuit with the Pennsylvania Academy over exhibition proceeds. Powers himself did not receive the contested money from the Pennsylvania Academy until 1858, after several additional court rulings. This issue caused negative press, and these issues might have been avoided if Kellogg had negotiated more skillfully (Pohrt 2016, 196). This lawsuit only served to deepen the growing rift between the two men because each felt that they were slighted by the other. Ultimately, their relationship fell apart due to their financial differences, legal disputes, and shared legacy of The Greek Slave.

18757_T

The Greek Slave

How does The Greek Slave elucidate its Research?

In early 2015, the Smithsonian Digitization Program made a three-dimensional scan of the original plaster cast of the sculpture. This scan is now available on their website with an interactive portion, as well as a downloadable version. With this, anyone in possession of a 3D printer can now create their own replica of the piece.

18757_NT

The Greek Slave

How does this artwork elucidate its Research?

In early 2015, the Smithsonian Digitization Program made a three-dimensional scan of the original plaster cast of the sculpture. This scan is now available on their website with an interactive portion, as well as a downloadable version. With this, anyone in possession of a 3D printer can now create their own replica of the piece.

18758_T

Dangers of the Mail

Focus on Dangers of the Mail and analyze the History.

The mural was commissioned through the Section of Fine Arts in 1935 in a New Deal art project designed to incorporate large works of art in the building. The mural was one of several specified to be "Romantic Subject Matter in the History of the Post" commissioned for the newly constructed headquarters of the Post Office Department.Frank Mechau was recruited for the program by Edward Rowan, then assistant director of the section. Dangers of the Mail was completed in 1937, installed on the fifth floor of the Post Office Department Building, and unveiled in September.

18758_NT

Dangers of the Mail

Focus on this artwork and analyze the History.

The mural was commissioned through the Section of Fine Arts in 1935 in a New Deal art project designed to incorporate large works of art in the building. The mural was one of several specified to be "Romantic Subject Matter in the History of the Post" commissioned for the newly constructed headquarters of the Post Office Department.Frank Mechau was recruited for the program by Edward Rowan, then assistant director of the section. Dangers of the Mail was completed in 1937, installed on the fifth floor of the Post Office Department Building, and unveiled in September.

18759_T

Dangers of the Mail

In Dangers of the Mail, how is the Description discussed?

Dangers of the Mail portrays the ambush and violent attack by Native Americans on a mail stagecoach and its occupants. Researcher Jessy Ohl describes the central painting as showing three "naked white women (being) scalped in a sexually explicit manner" in the bottom right hand of the artwork, where they are shown kneeling and bent awkwardly toward the sky and ground by three Native Americans. The Washington Post in 2000 reported a critic saying of the scene, "That so much plays into the stereotype of the sexually violent savage. He's going to either rape her or scalp her or both". Art historian Karal Ann Marling describes the figures of the women as "clearly female, to be sure, thanks to volumetric mass".Along with the main painting, there are five vignettes below the main painting and simpler designs along the top and side borders. The mural is 7 by 18 feet (2.1 by 5.5 m).

18759_NT

Dangers of the Mail

In this artwork, how is the Description discussed?

Dangers of the Mail portrays the ambush and violent attack by Native Americans on a mail stagecoach and its occupants. Researcher Jessy Ohl describes the central painting as showing three "naked white women (being) scalped in a sexually explicit manner" in the bottom right hand of the artwork, where they are shown kneeling and bent awkwardly toward the sky and ground by three Native Americans. The Washington Post in 2000 reported a critic saying of the scene, "That so much plays into the stereotype of the sexually violent savage. He's going to either rape her or scalp her or both". Art historian Karal Ann Marling describes the figures of the women as "clearly female, to be sure, thanks to volumetric mass".Along with the main painting, there are five vignettes below the main painting and simpler designs along the top and side borders. The mural is 7 by 18 feet (2.1 by 5.5 m).

18760_T

Dangers of the Mail

Focus on Dangers of the Mail and explore the Objections.

In March 1937, before it had been unveiled, images appeared in a two-page spread in Time, which drew "thousands of letters of protest" of the nudity and criticism for historical inaccuracies. Other critics objected to the portrayal of nude female figures being scalped or strangled; some to government-funded portrayals of female nudity and "lewd content". The controversy over the nude female figures eventually required Rowan and Mechau to defend the work, with Rowan making arguments that the nude figures were small and merely "symbolic motifs" and Mechau arguing that the women were being only "roughly handled". Rowan instructed Mechau to finish the work and get it installed as quickly as possible on the expectation that once the mural was in effect a fait accompli, the objections would eventually blow over. He dismissed suggestions that the figures be painted in clothing as likely to result in renewed negative publicity. He recommended Mechau look for historical evidence that Native Americans "actually tore the clothes from their victims" and told him to avoid the press, postal leadership, and legislators.Mechau arrived for the installation with documentation about scalping techniques and, according to art historian Marling, "Indian preferences in the matter of costuming appropriate for victims". The painting was installed in September 1937, after which Bureau of Indian Affairs commissioner John Collier ridiculed Rowan's and Mechau's earlier statements defending the depictions, calling the painting "a slaughter against pioneer women". Washington's Evening Star, without mentioning the nude women, immediately called the mural "Art at its Worst", said it had "shocked all who have seen it", accused "government doles" of "foster[ing]...radicalism in art", and accompanied its review with a recounting of Phoebe Atwood Taylor's Octagon House, a story of a town so scandalized by an offensive post office mural that members of the community broke in after hours and painted over it.After the early objections to the mural, the Treasury Department Section of Fine Arts developed a new review policy for mural designs that might be controversial.New objections to the mural arose after 2000 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made the building its headquarters. This time, several EPA employees argued that the mural, along with five others in the building, conveyed stereotypical portrayals of women and Native Americans and contributed to a hostile work environment.A 2005 complaint, filed on behalf of EPA employees regarding six murals in what was then called the Ariel Rios Federal Building, asserted that the various murals depicted Native Americans in a racist manner. As the controversy wore on, Dangers of the Mail became the primary issue (most of the original complaints were about the Dangers of the Mail, another Mechau mural entitled Pony Express, and Ward Lockwood's Opening of the Southwest and Consolidation of the West). In 2007, the General Services Administration, which is responsible for the management of federal buildings in the United States, agreed to install a movable screen in front of Dangers of the Mail and to "incorporate revised interpretative materials to address the history of the art and the controversy associated with the mural". A "comprehensive interpretive program" was developed for all 22 murals in the building, including Mechau's Dangers of the Mail and Pony Express, Lockwood's Opening of the Southwest and Consolidation of the West, William C. Palmer's Covered Wagon Attacked by Indians, and Karl R. Free's French Huguenots in Florida, which were the ones named in the filing.

18760_NT

Dangers of the Mail

Focus on this artwork and explore the Objections.

In March 1937, before it had been unveiled, images appeared in a two-page spread in Time, which drew "thousands of letters of protest" of the nudity and criticism for historical inaccuracies. Other critics objected to the portrayal of nude female figures being scalped or strangled; some to government-funded portrayals of female nudity and "lewd content". The controversy over the nude female figures eventually required Rowan and Mechau to defend the work, with Rowan making arguments that the nude figures were small and merely "symbolic motifs" and Mechau arguing that the women were being only "roughly handled". Rowan instructed Mechau to finish the work and get it installed as quickly as possible on the expectation that once the mural was in effect a fait accompli, the objections would eventually blow over. He dismissed suggestions that the figures be painted in clothing as likely to result in renewed negative publicity. He recommended Mechau look for historical evidence that Native Americans "actually tore the clothes from their victims" and told him to avoid the press, postal leadership, and legislators.Mechau arrived for the installation with documentation about scalping techniques and, according to art historian Marling, "Indian preferences in the matter of costuming appropriate for victims". The painting was installed in September 1937, after which Bureau of Indian Affairs commissioner John Collier ridiculed Rowan's and Mechau's earlier statements defending the depictions, calling the painting "a slaughter against pioneer women". Washington's Evening Star, without mentioning the nude women, immediately called the mural "Art at its Worst", said it had "shocked all who have seen it", accused "government doles" of "foster[ing]...radicalism in art", and accompanied its review with a recounting of Phoebe Atwood Taylor's Octagon House, a story of a town so scandalized by an offensive post office mural that members of the community broke in after hours and painted over it.After the early objections to the mural, the Treasury Department Section of Fine Arts developed a new review policy for mural designs that might be controversial.New objections to the mural arose after 2000 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made the building its headquarters. This time, several EPA employees argued that the mural, along with five others in the building, conveyed stereotypical portrayals of women and Native Americans and contributed to a hostile work environment.A 2005 complaint, filed on behalf of EPA employees regarding six murals in what was then called the Ariel Rios Federal Building, asserted that the various murals depicted Native Americans in a racist manner. As the controversy wore on, Dangers of the Mail became the primary issue (most of the original complaints were about the Dangers of the Mail, another Mechau mural entitled Pony Express, and Ward Lockwood's Opening of the Southwest and Consolidation of the West). In 2007, the General Services Administration, which is responsible for the management of federal buildings in the United States, agreed to install a movable screen in front of Dangers of the Mail and to "incorporate revised interpretative materials to address the history of the art and the controversy associated with the mural". A "comprehensive interpretive program" was developed for all 22 murals in the building, including Mechau's Dangers of the Mail and Pony Express, Lockwood's Opening of the Southwest and Consolidation of the West, William C. Palmer's Covered Wagon Attacked by Indians, and Karl R. Free's French Huguenots in Florida, which were the ones named in the filing.

18761_T

Dangers of the Mail

Focus on Dangers of the Mail and explain the Access for viewing.

Researcher Jessy Ohl recounts learning of the mural's existence through a colleague at the EPA who told of "a ritualistic practice of viewing the painting for new members of the agency". As of 2019, access for viewing requires scheduling an appointment with a General Services Administration employee.

18761_NT

Dangers of the Mail

Focus on this artwork and explain the Access for viewing.

Researcher Jessy Ohl recounts learning of the mural's existence through a colleague at the EPA who told of "a ritualistic practice of viewing the painting for new members of the agency". As of 2019, access for viewing requires scheduling an appointment with a General Services Administration employee.

18762_T

Dangers of the Mail

Explore the Critical analysis of this artwork, Dangers of the Mail.

In 1982 art historian Marling pointed out that the women in the bottom right of the painting were the only figures in the painting without faces or clothing and that they "(existed) solely to be preyed upon and maimed".: 256 In 2015, the Colorado Springs Business Journal called it possibly "the nation's most dangerous painting". In 2010 Sandra Starr, writing in Smithsonian's American Indian magazine, called it "easily the most controversial of all these (images of Native Americans in New Deal commissioned post office art)".Ohl, in 2019, wrote, "Far from reflecting an impartial or even faintly recorded 'History of the Post', Dangers of the Mail instead condenses titillating imagery of Western expansion epitomized in early American literature, film, television, and theatrical performance."

18762_NT

Dangers of the Mail

Explore the Critical analysis of this artwork.

In 1982 art historian Marling pointed out that the women in the bottom right of the painting were the only figures in the painting without faces or clothing and that they "(existed) solely to be preyed upon and maimed".: 256 In 2015, the Colorado Springs Business Journal called it possibly "the nation's most dangerous painting". In 2010 Sandra Starr, writing in Smithsonian's American Indian magazine, called it "easily the most controversial of all these (images of Native Americans in New Deal commissioned post office art)".Ohl, in 2019, wrote, "Far from reflecting an impartial or even faintly recorded 'History of the Post', Dangers of the Mail instead condenses titillating imagery of Western expansion epitomized in early American literature, film, television, and theatrical performance."

18763_T

Equestrian statue of George IV, Trafalgar Square

Focus on Equestrian statue of George IV, Trafalgar Square and discuss the abstract.

The statue of George IV in Trafalgar Square, London, is a bronze equestrian statue by Sir Francis Legatt Chantrey. It depicts the King dressed in ancient Roman attire and riding bareback. The sculpture was originally designed to sit on top of the Marble Arch at the entrance to Buckingham Palace, but was placed in its current location following the King's death.

18763_NT

Equestrian statue of George IV, Trafalgar Square

Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract.

The statue of George IV in Trafalgar Square, London, is a bronze equestrian statue by Sir Francis Legatt Chantrey. It depicts the King dressed in ancient Roman attire and riding bareback. The sculpture was originally designed to sit on top of the Marble Arch at the entrance to Buckingham Palace, but was placed in its current location following the King's death.

18764_T

Equestrian statue of George IV, Trafalgar Square

How does Equestrian statue of George IV, Trafalgar Square elucidate its History?

Sir Francis Leggatt Chantrey originally designed the statue to stand on top of Marble Arch in its original position as the entrance to Buckingham Palace, following architecture work by John Nash. Edward Blore took over the work, and his redesign to reduce costs removed the Chantrey statue. Chantrey's work was funded by George IV himself, rather than by public subscription. The statue was cast in 1828.George IV died in 1830, and the statue was placed on an empty plinth in Trafalgar Square in December 1843, which was expected to be on a temporary basis, however it has remained there ever since. It was unveiled to little ceremony, with The Times describing it as "somewhat suddenly erected". It was the first statue erected on one of the pedestals, which were installed three years earlier with architect Charles Barry expecting them to be filled by groups of statues. An inscription was added towards the end of the 19th century as the public were no longer aware of whom it portrayed.The journalist Janice Turner questioned the need for a statue of George IV in Trafalgar Square in 2005; in rebuttal Lord Baker of Dorking argued that the monarch still deserved the statue due to his town planning legacy which remained in London.In 2012, the milliner Stephen Jones created crowns for both George IV and his horse to be added to the statue as part of the "Hatwalk" art project sponsored by the Mayor of London; in the project 21 milliners created new hats for famous statues around London.

18764_NT

Equestrian statue of George IV, Trafalgar Square

How does this artwork elucidate its History?

Sir Francis Leggatt Chantrey originally designed the statue to stand on top of Marble Arch in its original position as the entrance to Buckingham Palace, following architecture work by John Nash. Edward Blore took over the work, and his redesign to reduce costs removed the Chantrey statue. Chantrey's work was funded by George IV himself, rather than by public subscription. The statue was cast in 1828.George IV died in 1830, and the statue was placed on an empty plinth in Trafalgar Square in December 1843, which was expected to be on a temporary basis, however it has remained there ever since. It was unveiled to little ceremony, with The Times describing it as "somewhat suddenly erected". It was the first statue erected on one of the pedestals, which were installed three years earlier with architect Charles Barry expecting them to be filled by groups of statues. An inscription was added towards the end of the 19th century as the public were no longer aware of whom it portrayed.The journalist Janice Turner questioned the need for a statue of George IV in Trafalgar Square in 2005; in rebuttal Lord Baker of Dorking argued that the monarch still deserved the statue due to his town planning legacy which remained in London.In 2012, the milliner Stephen Jones created crowns for both George IV and his horse to be added to the statue as part of the "Hatwalk" art project sponsored by the Mayor of London; in the project 21 milliners created new hats for famous statues around London.

18765_T

Statue of Manuel M. Diéguez

Focus on Statue of Manuel M. Diéguez and analyze the abstract.

A statue of Manuel M. Diéguez is installed along the Rotonda de los Jaliscienses Ilustres, in Centro, Guadalajara, in the Mexican state of Jalisco.

18765_NT

Statue of Manuel M. Diéguez

Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract.

A statue of Manuel M. Diéguez is installed along the Rotonda de los Jaliscienses Ilustres, in Centro, Guadalajara, in the Mexican state of Jalisco.

18766_T

Tanaquil (painting)

In Tanaquil (painting), how is the abstract discussed?

Tanaquil is an oil-on-wood painting by the Italian Renaissance painter Domenico Beccafumi, which depicts Tanaquil, a queen of Rome. The work was painted by Beccafumi c. 1519 for the bedroom of Francesco Petrucci, Lord of Siena, part of a series which also included Marcia. The painting depicts the queen together with broken architecture and dead plants. She points to a tablet that identifies her as Tanaquil.

18766_NT

Tanaquil (painting)

In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed?

Tanaquil is an oil-on-wood painting by the Italian Renaissance painter Domenico Beccafumi, which depicts Tanaquil, a queen of Rome. The work was painted by Beccafumi c. 1519 for the bedroom of Francesco Petrucci, Lord of Siena, part of a series which also included Marcia. The painting depicts the queen together with broken architecture and dead plants. She points to a tablet that identifies her as Tanaquil.

18767_T

Silver Car Crash (Double Disaster)

Focus on Silver Car Crash (Double Disaster) and explore the abstract.

Silver Car Crash (Double Disaster) is a 1963 serigraph by the American artist Andy Warhol. In November 2013, it sold for $105 million (£65.5m) at NYC auction, setting a new highest price for a work by Warhol.

18767_NT

Silver Car Crash (Double Disaster)

Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract.

Silver Car Crash (Double Disaster) is a 1963 serigraph by the American artist Andy Warhol. In November 2013, it sold for $105 million (£65.5m) at NYC auction, setting a new highest price for a work by Warhol.

18768_T

The Kitchen Maid

Focus on The Kitchen Maid and explain the abstract.

The Kitchen Maid (in Spanish La mulata, La cocinera or Escena de cocina (Kitchen Scene)) and Kitchen Maid with the Supper at Emmaus are two paired domestic paintings by Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez from his early Seville period. A wide range of dates has been suggested for its completion, although most place it between 1620 and 1622. The first version is kept in the Art Institute of Chicago; the second version is held at the National Gallery of Ireland. José López-Rey suggests that this picture could be related to a lost Velázquez painting described by Antonio Palomino "... where a board is seen, that serves as a table, with a charcoal burner, and a pot boiling on top, and covered with a bowl, and the fire is visible, the flames, and the sparks are clearly visible, a small tin saucepan, an alcarraza, some plates, and some basins, a glazed jug, a mortar with its pestle and a head of garlic next to it; and on the wall there is small basket and a cloth hanging from a hook, and other trinkets; and guarding this is a boy holding a jug, wearing a coif, who with his humble clothes represents a subject that is very ridiculous and amusing". The Dublin version was bequeathed by Alfred Beit in 1987. A 1933 cleaning revealed a depiction of Jesus’ supper at Emmaus on the wall behind the main figure. The Chicago painting was bought from the Goudstikker gallery in Amsterdam by August L. Mayer and presented to the Institute in 1927. It was at the time thought to be the Velázquez original, relegating the Beit painting to the status of a copy. A number of art experts agreed with this opinion, including Bernardino Pantorba and José Gudiol, however, López-Rey recognized that the painting in Dublin came from the hand of Velázquez, casting doubt on the originality of the painting in Chicago due to its poor state of conservation. The Velázquez expert Jonathan Brown agreed with this reasoning, suggesting that the Chicago painting was “possibly” painted by Velázquez. He also suggested that the picture might be a copy produced by an artist who "wanted to draw on the success of genre paintings by Velázquez and who might have produced a large number of replicas and versions of the originals".The Chicago painting was restored in 1999 by Frank Zuccari. Despite paint losses, the best conserved parts show a similar quality, and in some aspects a superior quality, to the Dublin version. No trace has been found suggesting that the painting might have at any time had any religious significance or that it is anything other than a painting of a mulatto maid working in a kitchen. The painting contains a number of features that confirm its technical superiority over the Dublin version. In the Chicago version there are a greater number of folds on the upper part of the girl’s coif and the treatment of the associated light and shadows is more meticulous, this is also seen in the crumpled cloth in the foreground. Superior technique is also seen in the depiction of light on the objects, particularly on the glazed ceramic jug that the maid is holding in her hand, in which it is possible to see the shine of the crackle glaze and marks left when the jug was formed on a potter’s wheel. A possible explanation for this improvement in technique is that Velázquez returned to a previous theme in order to improve on it, concentrating on the tactile qualities of the painting, which were his main interest at the time, and disregarding the religious motif.Suggested influences for the painting include Flemish engravings by Jacob Matham. The appearance of the Supper at Emmaus in the Dublin version has led some authors to suggest a possible influence by Caravaggio, although this is uncertain as it is difficult to establish whether works by the Italian painter or by his contemporaries could have reached Seville and for Velázquez to have been familiar with them.In 2018 the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, announced the discovery of a third version: this one is similar to the Chicago version but 'cropped' at left and right to an almost square format.

18768_NT

The Kitchen Maid

Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract.

The Kitchen Maid (in Spanish La mulata, La cocinera or Escena de cocina (Kitchen Scene)) and Kitchen Maid with the Supper at Emmaus are two paired domestic paintings by Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez from his early Seville period. A wide range of dates has been suggested for its completion, although most place it between 1620 and 1622. The first version is kept in the Art Institute of Chicago; the second version is held at the National Gallery of Ireland. José López-Rey suggests that this picture could be related to a lost Velázquez painting described by Antonio Palomino "... where a board is seen, that serves as a table, with a charcoal burner, and a pot boiling on top, and covered with a bowl, and the fire is visible, the flames, and the sparks are clearly visible, a small tin saucepan, an alcarraza, some plates, and some basins, a glazed jug, a mortar with its pestle and a head of garlic next to it; and on the wall there is small basket and a cloth hanging from a hook, and other trinkets; and guarding this is a boy holding a jug, wearing a coif, who with his humble clothes represents a subject that is very ridiculous and amusing". The Dublin version was bequeathed by Alfred Beit in 1987. A 1933 cleaning revealed a depiction of Jesus’ supper at Emmaus on the wall behind the main figure. The Chicago painting was bought from the Goudstikker gallery in Amsterdam by August L. Mayer and presented to the Institute in 1927. It was at the time thought to be the Velázquez original, relegating the Beit painting to the status of a copy. A number of art experts agreed with this opinion, including Bernardino Pantorba and José Gudiol, however, López-Rey recognized that the painting in Dublin came from the hand of Velázquez, casting doubt on the originality of the painting in Chicago due to its poor state of conservation. The Velázquez expert Jonathan Brown agreed with this reasoning, suggesting that the Chicago painting was “possibly” painted by Velázquez. He also suggested that the picture might be a copy produced by an artist who "wanted to draw on the success of genre paintings by Velázquez and who might have produced a large number of replicas and versions of the originals".The Chicago painting was restored in 1999 by Frank Zuccari. Despite paint losses, the best conserved parts show a similar quality, and in some aspects a superior quality, to the Dublin version. No trace has been found suggesting that the painting might have at any time had any religious significance or that it is anything other than a painting of a mulatto maid working in a kitchen. The painting contains a number of features that confirm its technical superiority over the Dublin version. In the Chicago version there are a greater number of folds on the upper part of the girl’s coif and the treatment of the associated light and shadows is more meticulous, this is also seen in the crumpled cloth in the foreground. Superior technique is also seen in the depiction of light on the objects, particularly on the glazed ceramic jug that the maid is holding in her hand, in which it is possible to see the shine of the crackle glaze and marks left when the jug was formed on a potter’s wheel. A possible explanation for this improvement in technique is that Velázquez returned to a previous theme in order to improve on it, concentrating on the tactile qualities of the painting, which were his main interest at the time, and disregarding the religious motif.Suggested influences for the painting include Flemish engravings by Jacob Matham. The appearance of the Supper at Emmaus in the Dublin version has led some authors to suggest a possible influence by Caravaggio, although this is uncertain as it is difficult to establish whether works by the Italian painter or by his contemporaries could have reached Seville and for Velázquez to have been familiar with them.In 2018 the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, announced the discovery of a third version: this one is similar to the Chicago version but 'cropped' at left and right to an almost square format.

18769_T

Landscape with Red Spots

Explore the abstract of this artwork, Landscape with Red Spots.

Landscape with Red Spots was the name given to each of two successive oil paintings produced in Bavaria in 1913 by the Russian émigré painter Wassily Kandinsky. The first is now in the Museum Folkwang, in Essen, Germany. The second, known as Landscape with Red Spots, No 2 (see picture at right), is in the Peggy Guggenheim Collection, in Venice. Between 1909 and the beginning of World War I, Kandinsky and his female companion, the painter Gabriele Münter, spent their summers in Murnau am Staffelsee on the edge of the Bavarian Alps. The village church of St Nikolaus and its prominent round tower feature several times in landscape paintings executed by the artist during his time there. As Kandinsky's style evolved over the period into abstract expressionism the images of the church and its surroundings became gradually less figurative and more abstract.

18769_NT

Landscape with Red Spots

Explore the abstract of this artwork.

Landscape with Red Spots was the name given to each of two successive oil paintings produced in Bavaria in 1913 by the Russian émigré painter Wassily Kandinsky. The first is now in the Museum Folkwang, in Essen, Germany. The second, known as Landscape with Red Spots, No 2 (see picture at right), is in the Peggy Guggenheim Collection, in Venice. Between 1909 and the beginning of World War I, Kandinsky and his female companion, the painter Gabriele Münter, spent their summers in Murnau am Staffelsee on the edge of the Bavarian Alps. The village church of St Nikolaus and its prominent round tower feature several times in landscape paintings executed by the artist during his time there. As Kandinsky's style evolved over the period into abstract expressionism the images of the church and its surroundings became gradually less figurative and more abstract.

18770_T

Landscape with Red Spots

Focus on Landscape with Red Spots and discuss the Description.

In both the pictures concerned here, which are very similar in composition but different in size, the church tower has been elongated as a geometrical shape to the very edge of the canvas and the mountains behind reduced to monochrome triangles. The eponymous red spots are at the foot of the tower. The earlier work (see left) was acquired soon after completion by the poet Karl Wolfskehl, before being acquired by the Museum Folkwang in 1962.

18770_NT

Landscape with Red Spots

Focus on this artwork and discuss the Description.

In both the pictures concerned here, which are very similar in composition but different in size, the church tower has been elongated as a geometrical shape to the very edge of the canvas and the mountains behind reduced to monochrome triangles. The eponymous red spots are at the foot of the tower. The earlier work (see left) was acquired soon after completion by the poet Karl Wolfskehl, before being acquired by the Museum Folkwang in 1962.

18771_T

The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife

How does The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife elucidate its History and description?

The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife is the most famous image in Kinoe no Komatsu, published in three volumes from 1814. The book is a work of shunga (erotic art) within the ukiyo-e genre. The image depicts a woman, evidently an ama (a shell diver), enveloped in the limbs of two octopuses. The larger of the two mollusks performs cunnilingus on her, while the smaller one, his offspring, assists by fondling the woman's mouth and left nipple. In the text above the image the woman and the creatures express their mutual sexual pleasure from the encounter.All designs in the publication are untitled; this design is generally known in Japanese as Tako to ama, translated variously into English. Richard Douglas Lane calls it Girl Diver and Octopi; Matthi Forrer calls it Pearl Diver and Two Octopi; and Danielle Talerico calls it Diver and Two Octopi. The open book measures 16.51 cm × 22.23 cm (6.50 in × 8.75 in).

18771_NT

The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife

How does this artwork elucidate its History and description?

The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife is the most famous image in Kinoe no Komatsu, published in three volumes from 1814. The book is a work of shunga (erotic art) within the ukiyo-e genre. The image depicts a woman, evidently an ama (a shell diver), enveloped in the limbs of two octopuses. The larger of the two mollusks performs cunnilingus on her, while the smaller one, his offspring, assists by fondling the woman's mouth and left nipple. In the text above the image the woman and the creatures express their mutual sexual pleasure from the encounter.All designs in the publication are untitled; this design is generally known in Japanese as Tako to ama, translated variously into English. Richard Douglas Lane calls it Girl Diver and Octopi; Matthi Forrer calls it Pearl Diver and Two Octopi; and Danielle Talerico calls it Diver and Two Octopi. The open book measures 16.51 cm × 22.23 cm (6.50 in × 8.75 in).

18772_T

The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife

Focus on The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife and analyze the Text on the print.

The full text, which surrounds the maiden and octopuses, as translated by James Heaton and Toyoshima Mizuho: LARGE OCTOPUS: My wish comes true at last, this day of days; finally I have you in my grasp! Your "bobo" is ripe and full, how wonderful! Superior to all others! To suck and suck and suck some more. After we do it masterfully, I'll guide you to the Dragon Palace of the Sea God and envelop you. "Zuu sufu sufu chyu chyu chyu tsu zuu fufufuuu..." MAIDEN: You hateful octopus! Your sucking at the mouth of my womb makes me gasp for breath! Aah! Yes... it's... there!!! With the sucker, the sucker!! Inside, squiggle, squiggle, oooh! Oooh, good, oooh good! There, there! Theeeeere! Goood! Whew! Aah! Good, good, aaaaaaaaaah! Not yet! Until now it was I that men called an octopus! An octopus! Ooh! Whew! How are you able...!? Ooh! "Yoyoyooh, saa... hicha hicha gucha gucha, yuchyuu chyu guzu guzu suu suuu..." LARGE OCTOPUS: All eight limbs to interwine with!! How do you like it this way? Ah, look! The inside has swollen, moistened by the warm waters of lust. "Nura nura doku doku doku..." MAIDEN: Yes, it tingles now; soon there will be no sensation at all left in my hips. Ooooooh! Boundaries and borders gone! I've vanished...!!!!!!SMALL OCTOPUS: After daddy finishes, I too want to rub and rub my suckers at the ridge of your furry place until you disappear and then I'll suck some more. "Chyu chyu..."

18772_NT

The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife

Focus on this artwork and analyze the Text on the print.

The full text, which surrounds the maiden and octopuses, as translated by James Heaton and Toyoshima Mizuho: LARGE OCTOPUS: My wish comes true at last, this day of days; finally I have you in my grasp! Your "bobo" is ripe and full, how wonderful! Superior to all others! To suck and suck and suck some more. After we do it masterfully, I'll guide you to the Dragon Palace of the Sea God and envelop you. "Zuu sufu sufu chyu chyu chyu tsu zuu fufufuuu..." MAIDEN: You hateful octopus! Your sucking at the mouth of my womb makes me gasp for breath! Aah! Yes... it's... there!!! With the sucker, the sucker!! Inside, squiggle, squiggle, oooh! Oooh, good, oooh good! There, there! Theeeeere! Goood! Whew! Aah! Good, good, aaaaaaaaaah! Not yet! Until now it was I that men called an octopus! An octopus! Ooh! Whew! How are you able...!? Ooh! "Yoyoyooh, saa... hicha hicha gucha gucha, yuchyuu chyu guzu guzu suu suuu..." LARGE OCTOPUS: All eight limbs to interwine with!! How do you like it this way? Ah, look! The inside has swollen, moistened by the warm waters of lust. "Nura nura doku doku doku..." MAIDEN: Yes, it tingles now; soon there will be no sensation at all left in my hips. Ooooooh! Boundaries and borders gone! I've vanished...!!!!!!SMALL OCTOPUS: After daddy finishes, I too want to rub and rub my suckers at the ridge of your furry place until you disappear and then I'll suck some more. "Chyu chyu..."

18773_T

The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife

In The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, how is the Influence discussed?

The image is often cited as a forerunner of tentacle erotica, a motif that has been popular in modern Japanese animation and manga since the late 20th century, popularized by author Toshio Maeda. Modern tentacle erotica similarly depicts sex between women and tentacled beasts; the sex in modern depictions is typically forced, as opposed to Hokusai's mutually pleasurable interaction. Psychologist and critic Jerry S. Piven is skeptical that Hokusai's playful image could account for the violent depictions in modern media, arguing that these are instead a product of the turmoil experienced throughout Japanese society following World War II, which was in turn reflective of existing, underlying currents of cultural trauma. Scholar Holger Briel argues that "only in a society that already has a predilection for monsters and is used to interacting with octopods such images might arise", citing Hokusai's print an early exemplar of such a tradition. The work influenced later artists such as Félicien Rops, Auguste Rodin, Louis Aucoc, Fernand Khnopff and Pablo Picasso. Picasso drew his own private version in 1903, which was displayed in a 2009 Museu Picasso exhibit titled Secret Images, alongside 26 other drawings and engravings by Picasso, displayed next to Hokusai's original and 16 other Japanese prints, portraying the influence of 19th century Japanese art on Picasso's work. Picasso also later fully painted works that were directly influenced by the woodblock print, such as 1932's Reclining Nude, where the woman in pleasure is also the octopus, capable of pleasuring herself. In 2003, a derivative work by Australian painter David Laity, titled The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, sparked a minor obscenity controversy when it was shown at a gallery in Melbourne; after receiving complaints, police investigated and decided it did not break the city's anti-pornography laws. Hokusai's print has had a wide influence on the modern Japanese-American artist Masami Teraoka, who has created images of women, including a recurring "pearl diver" character, being pleasured by cephalopods as a symbol of female sexual power.The so-called aria della piovra ("Octopus aria") Un dì, ero piccina in Pietro Mascagni's opera Iris (1898), on a libretto by Luigi Illica, may have been inspired by this print. The main character Iris describes a screen she had seen in a Buddhist temple when she was a child, depicting an octopus coiling its limbs around a smiling young woman and killing her. She recalls a Buddhist priest explaining: "That octopus is Pleasure... That octopus is Death!"The scene is recreated in a "surreal, slightly horrific form" in Kaneto Shindo's 1981 fictionalized Hokusai biopic Edo Porn. The print is featured briefly in Park Chan-wook's film The Handmaiden and is intended to illustrate the perverted nature of Uncle Kouzuki's oppression of Lady Hideko to Sook-Hee. The print is given more air time in several episodes of the television series Mad Men, first on the office wall of a senior CEO, perhaps as a symbol of "monstrous alpha male power"; the print is given to Peggy Olson by Roger Sterling, Jr. near the series' end. Olson decides to hang the print in her office, part of the culmination of her storyline of becoming comfortable as an executive.The print has been cited by Isabel Coixet as influential in a sexual scene in her film Elisa & Marcela, as a "non-masculine sexual reference".

18773_NT

The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife

In this artwork, how is the Influence discussed?

The image is often cited as a forerunner of tentacle erotica, a motif that has been popular in modern Japanese animation and manga since the late 20th century, popularized by author Toshio Maeda. Modern tentacle erotica similarly depicts sex between women and tentacled beasts; the sex in modern depictions is typically forced, as opposed to Hokusai's mutually pleasurable interaction. Psychologist and critic Jerry S. Piven is skeptical that Hokusai's playful image could account for the violent depictions in modern media, arguing that these are instead a product of the turmoil experienced throughout Japanese society following World War II, which was in turn reflective of existing, underlying currents of cultural trauma. Scholar Holger Briel argues that "only in a society that already has a predilection for monsters and is used to interacting with octopods such images might arise", citing Hokusai's print an early exemplar of such a tradition. The work influenced later artists such as Félicien Rops, Auguste Rodin, Louis Aucoc, Fernand Khnopff and Pablo Picasso. Picasso drew his own private version in 1903, which was displayed in a 2009 Museu Picasso exhibit titled Secret Images, alongside 26 other drawings and engravings by Picasso, displayed next to Hokusai's original and 16 other Japanese prints, portraying the influence of 19th century Japanese art on Picasso's work. Picasso also later fully painted works that were directly influenced by the woodblock print, such as 1932's Reclining Nude, where the woman in pleasure is also the octopus, capable of pleasuring herself. In 2003, a derivative work by Australian painter David Laity, titled The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, sparked a minor obscenity controversy when it was shown at a gallery in Melbourne; after receiving complaints, police investigated and decided it did not break the city's anti-pornography laws. Hokusai's print has had a wide influence on the modern Japanese-American artist Masami Teraoka, who has created images of women, including a recurring "pearl diver" character, being pleasured by cephalopods as a symbol of female sexual power.The so-called aria della piovra ("Octopus aria") Un dì, ero piccina in Pietro Mascagni's opera Iris (1898), on a libretto by Luigi Illica, may have been inspired by this print. The main character Iris describes a screen she had seen in a Buddhist temple when she was a child, depicting an octopus coiling its limbs around a smiling young woman and killing her. She recalls a Buddhist priest explaining: "That octopus is Pleasure... That octopus is Death!"The scene is recreated in a "surreal, slightly horrific form" in Kaneto Shindo's 1981 fictionalized Hokusai biopic Edo Porn. The print is featured briefly in Park Chan-wook's film The Handmaiden and is intended to illustrate the perverted nature of Uncle Kouzuki's oppression of Lady Hideko to Sook-Hee. The print is given more air time in several episodes of the television series Mad Men, first on the office wall of a senior CEO, perhaps as a symbol of "monstrous alpha male power"; the print is given to Peggy Olson by Roger Sterling, Jr. near the series' end. Olson decides to hang the print in her office, part of the culmination of her storyline of becoming comfortable as an executive.The print has been cited by Isabel Coixet as influential in a sexual scene in her film Elisa & Marcela, as a "non-masculine sexual reference".

18774_T

Savoyard with a Marmot

Focus on Savoyard with a Marmot and explore the abstract.

Savoyard with a Marmot is an oil-on-canvas painting of 1716 by the French Rococo artist Jean-Antoine Watteau (1684–1721). It depicts an itinerant musician/raconteur from Savoy. The painting depicts his clarinet and his trained companion marmot. Savoyards were known to utilize the animals at traveling shows and local fairs, having trained them to "tell fortunes" by pulling carded predictions from a hat. "Lied des Marmottenbuben" by Goethe, and Les deux petits savoyards both depict this. The painting is said to depict the Savoyard's disassociation and loneliness; Savoy was a poor region, and emigres were often marginal outcasts within the lands they decamped for. Earlier, in 1715, Watteau had drawn an older Savoy woman with her boxed marmot in "Standing Savoyarde with a Marmot Box", before expanding the depth of the depiction with this work.The painting was a part of Catherine the Great's collection, before transferring to the Hermitage Museum.

18774_NT

Savoyard with a Marmot

Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract.

Savoyard with a Marmot is an oil-on-canvas painting of 1716 by the French Rococo artist Jean-Antoine Watteau (1684–1721). It depicts an itinerant musician/raconteur from Savoy. The painting depicts his clarinet and his trained companion marmot. Savoyards were known to utilize the animals at traveling shows and local fairs, having trained them to "tell fortunes" by pulling carded predictions from a hat. "Lied des Marmottenbuben" by Goethe, and Les deux petits savoyards both depict this. The painting is said to depict the Savoyard's disassociation and loneliness; Savoy was a poor region, and emigres were often marginal outcasts within the lands they decamped for. Earlier, in 1715, Watteau had drawn an older Savoy woman with her boxed marmot in "Standing Savoyarde with a Marmot Box", before expanding the depth of the depiction with this work.The painting was a part of Catherine the Great's collection, before transferring to the Hermitage Museum.

18775_T

El Soplón

Focus on El Soplón and explain the abstract.

El Soplón or Boy Blowing on an Ember is a 1571-1572 oil on canvas painting by El Greco, produced during his stay in Rome and inspired by a passage in Pliny the Elder's Naturalis historia. It and Portrait of Giulio Clovio are among the first of his paintings of figures. He later re-used the figure for The Fable (1580). It may have been a direct commission from the Farnese family, though its origins are not known for sure. It is traditionally thought to have been influenced by Jacopo Bassano, though recent studies have shown that it was instead an attempt to reconstruct a lost ancient Roman painting. It formed part of the Farnese Collection. The painting was inherited by Charles of Bourbon in 1734 and moved to Naples. It is now in the Museo di Capodimonte in Naples.

18775_NT

El Soplón

Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract.

El Soplón or Boy Blowing on an Ember is a 1571-1572 oil on canvas painting by El Greco, produced during his stay in Rome and inspired by a passage in Pliny the Elder's Naturalis historia. It and Portrait of Giulio Clovio are among the first of his paintings of figures. He later re-used the figure for The Fable (1580). It may have been a direct commission from the Farnese family, though its origins are not known for sure. It is traditionally thought to have been influenced by Jacopo Bassano, though recent studies have shown that it was instead an attempt to reconstruct a lost ancient Roman painting. It formed part of the Farnese Collection. The painting was inherited by Charles of Bourbon in 1734 and moved to Naples. It is now in the Museo di Capodimonte in Naples.

18776_T

Risen Christ (Reni)

Explore the abstract of this artwork, Risen Christ (Reni).

Risen Christ is an oil on canvas painting by Guido Reni, from 1620.

18776_NT

Risen Christ (Reni)

Explore the abstract of this artwork.

Risen Christ is an oil on canvas painting by Guido Reni, from 1620.

18777_T

Risen Christ (Reni)

Focus on Risen Christ (Reni) and discuss the Analysis.

It is inspired by a statue made by Michelangelo Buonarroti, at the church of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome.

18777_NT

Risen Christ (Reni)

Focus on this artwork and discuss the Analysis.

It is inspired by a statue made by Michelangelo Buonarroti, at the church of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome.

18778_T

Löwenkämpfer

How does Löwenkämpfer elucidate its abstract?

Löwenkämpfer (The Lion Fighter) is an 1858 bronze equestrian statue by Albert Wolff, installed outside the Altes Museum in Berlin, Germany. An 1892 copy stands in front of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The companion piece is Amazone zu Pferde, also installed outside the Altes Museum.

18778_NT

Löwenkämpfer

How does this artwork elucidate its abstract?

Löwenkämpfer (The Lion Fighter) is an 1858 bronze equestrian statue by Albert Wolff, installed outside the Altes Museum in Berlin, Germany. An 1892 copy stands in front of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The companion piece is Amazone zu Pferde, also installed outside the Altes Museum.

18779_T

The Bedroom (Karlsruhe)

Focus on The Bedroom (Karlsruhe) and analyze the abstract.

The Bedroom (1658–1660) is an oil-on-canvas painting by the Dutch painter Pieter de Hooch. It is an example of Dutch Golden Age painting and is part of the collection of the Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe.The painting was documented by Hofstede de Groot in 1910, who wrote:72. THE BEDROOM. To the right a young woman is making a bed. She has taken the clothes from a bed enclosed in a wooden partition, and has laid them over a chair. She stands in profile to the left, and smiles at her little girl, who stands in the open doorway to the left with an apple in her left hand. The child's figure is illumined from a high window on the left and from a door in the background. This door leads from a little ante-room into the open air, where walls and garden hedges are visible. In the left foreground is a table with a jug; behind it is a chair. Signed to the left on the table-leg with a monogram of the letters P and H (apparently genuine) ; canvas, 19 1/2 inches by 25 inches. Mentioned by Parthey, 1863 (i. 622, 3). According to a letter from K. Koelitz, the picture belonged to the reigning house of Baden in the eighteenth century. Now in the Grand Ducal Picture Gallery at Karlsruhe, No. 259 in the 1894 catalogue. This painting seems to have been a successful design for De Hooch as there are several variations on the subject and another version of this painting in Washington D.C.

18779_NT

The Bedroom (Karlsruhe)

Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract.

The Bedroom (1658–1660) is an oil-on-canvas painting by the Dutch painter Pieter de Hooch. It is an example of Dutch Golden Age painting and is part of the collection of the Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe.The painting was documented by Hofstede de Groot in 1910, who wrote:72. THE BEDROOM. To the right a young woman is making a bed. She has taken the clothes from a bed enclosed in a wooden partition, and has laid them over a chair. She stands in profile to the left, and smiles at her little girl, who stands in the open doorway to the left with an apple in her left hand. The child's figure is illumined from a high window on the left and from a door in the background. This door leads from a little ante-room into the open air, where walls and garden hedges are visible. In the left foreground is a table with a jug; behind it is a chair. Signed to the left on the table-leg with a monogram of the letters P and H (apparently genuine) ; canvas, 19 1/2 inches by 25 inches. Mentioned by Parthey, 1863 (i. 622, 3). According to a letter from K. Koelitz, the picture belonged to the reigning house of Baden in the eighteenth century. Now in the Grand Ducal Picture Gallery at Karlsruhe, No. 259 in the 1894 catalogue. This painting seems to have been a successful design for De Hooch as there are several variations on the subject and another version of this painting in Washington D.C.

18780_T

Symphony in White, No. 2: The Little White Girl

In Symphony in White, No. 2: The Little White Girl, how is the abstract discussed?

Symphony in White, No. 2, also known as The Little White Girl is a painting by James McNeill Whistler. The work shows a woman in three-quarter figure standing by a fireplace with a mirror over it. She is holding a fan in her hand, and wearing a white dress. The model is Joanna Hiffernan, the artist's mistress. Though the painting was originally called The Little White Girl, Whistler later started calling it Symphony in White, No. 2. By referring to his work in such abstract terms, he intended to emphasize his "art for art's sake" philosophy. In this painting, Heffernan wears a ring on her ring finger, even though the two were not married. By this religious imagery, Whistler emphasizes the aesthetic philosophy behind his work. Whistler created the painting in the winter of 1864, and it was displayed at the Royal Academy the next year. The original frame carried a poem written by Whistler's friend Algernon Charles Swinburne – titled "Before the Mirror" – written on sheets of golden paper. The poem was inspired by the painting, a form known as ekphrastic poetry, and to Whistler this demonstrated that the visual arts need not be subservient to literature. Though there are few clues to the meaning and symbolism of the painting, critics have found allusions to the work of Ingres, as well as oriental elements typical of the popular Japonisme.

18780_NT

Symphony in White, No. 2: The Little White Girl

In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed?

Symphony in White, No. 2, also known as The Little White Girl is a painting by James McNeill Whistler. The work shows a woman in three-quarter figure standing by a fireplace with a mirror over it. She is holding a fan in her hand, and wearing a white dress. The model is Joanna Hiffernan, the artist's mistress. Though the painting was originally called The Little White Girl, Whistler later started calling it Symphony in White, No. 2. By referring to his work in such abstract terms, he intended to emphasize his "art for art's sake" philosophy. In this painting, Heffernan wears a ring on her ring finger, even though the two were not married. By this religious imagery, Whistler emphasizes the aesthetic philosophy behind his work. Whistler created the painting in the winter of 1864, and it was displayed at the Royal Academy the next year. The original frame carried a poem written by Whistler's friend Algernon Charles Swinburne – titled "Before the Mirror" – written on sheets of golden paper. The poem was inspired by the painting, a form known as ekphrastic poetry, and to Whistler this demonstrated that the visual arts need not be subservient to literature. Though there are few clues to the meaning and symbolism of the painting, critics have found allusions to the work of Ingres, as well as oriental elements typical of the popular Japonisme.

18781_T

Symphony in White, No. 2: The Little White Girl

Focus on Symphony in White, No. 2: The Little White Girl and explore the Artist and model.

James Abbott McNeill Whistler was born in the United States in 1834, the son of George Washington Whistler, a railway engineer. In 1843, his father relocated the family to Saint Petersburg, Russia, where James received training in painting. After a stay in England, he returned to America to attend the US Military Academy at West Point in 1851. In 1855, he made his way back to Europe, determined to dedicate himself to painting. He settled in Paris at first, but in 1859 moved to London, where he would spend most of the remainder of his life. There he met Dante Gabriel Rossetti and other members of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, who would have a profound influence on Whistler.It was also in London that Whistler met Joanna Hiffernan, the model who would become his lover. Their relationship has been referred to as a "marriage without benefit of clergy." By 1861, Whistler had already used her as a model for other paintings. In Wapping, painted between 1860 and 1864, Hiffernan (according to Whistler) portrayed a prostitute. The direct precursor of The Little White Girl was a painting created in the winter of 1861–62, initially called The White Girl and later renamed Symphony in White, No. 1. Hiffernan supposedly had a strong influence over Whistler; his brother-in-law Francis Seymour Haden refused a dinner invitation in the winter of 1863–64 due to her dominant presence in the household.

18781_NT

Symphony in White, No. 2: The Little White Girl

Focus on this artwork and explore the Artist and model.

James Abbott McNeill Whistler was born in the United States in 1834, the son of George Washington Whistler, a railway engineer. In 1843, his father relocated the family to Saint Petersburg, Russia, where James received training in painting. After a stay in England, he returned to America to attend the US Military Academy at West Point in 1851. In 1855, he made his way back to Europe, determined to dedicate himself to painting. He settled in Paris at first, but in 1859 moved to London, where he would spend most of the remainder of his life. There he met Dante Gabriel Rossetti and other members of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, who would have a profound influence on Whistler.It was also in London that Whistler met Joanna Hiffernan, the model who would become his lover. Their relationship has been referred to as a "marriage without benefit of clergy." By 1861, Whistler had already used her as a model for other paintings. In Wapping, painted between 1860 and 1864, Hiffernan (according to Whistler) portrayed a prostitute. The direct precursor of The Little White Girl was a painting created in the winter of 1861–62, initially called The White Girl and later renamed Symphony in White, No. 1. Hiffernan supposedly had a strong influence over Whistler; his brother-in-law Francis Seymour Haden refused a dinner invitation in the winter of 1863–64 due to her dominant presence in the household.

18782_T

Symphony in White, No. 2: The Little White Girl

Focus on Symphony in White, No. 2: The Little White Girl and explain the History of the painting and Swinburne's poem.

Whistler painted The Little White Girl in 1864, with Hiffernan as his model. In 1865 it was exhibited at the summer exhibition of the Royal Academy; Whistler had offered The White Girl for the 1862 exhibition, but it had been rejected. English critics were not too impressed by the painting; one in particular called it "bizarre", while another called it "generally grimy grey". In 1900, however, it was one of the pictures Whistler submitted to the Universal Exhibition in Paris, where he won a grand prix for paintings. The first owner of the painting was the wallpaper manufacturer John Gerald Potter, a friend and patron of Whistler. In 1893 it came into the possession of Arthur Studd, who gave it to the National Gallery in 1919. In 1951 it was transferred to the Tate Gallery.In 1862 Whistler had met the English poet Algernon Charles Swinburne, with whom he developed a close friendship. The relationship between the two was mutually beneficial. Inspired by Whistler's Little White Girl, Swinburne wrote a poem with the title "Before the Mirror". Before the painting went on exhibition at the Royal Academy, Whistler pasted the poem written on gold leaf onto the frame. The idea of decorating a painting's frame with a poem was one Whistler had gotten from Rossetti, who had similarly pasted a golden paper with one of his poems on the frame of his 1849 painting The Girlhood of Mary. To Whistler, this poem underlined his idea of the autonomous nature of the painted medium. It showed that painters were more than mere illustrators, and that visual art could be an inspiration for poetry, not just the other way around.A misconception circulated at the time that the painting had been inspired by Swinburne's poem. In a letter to a newspaper, Whistler refuted this, while still showing his respect for Swinburne's work; "those lines" he wrote "were only written, in my studio, after the picture was painted. And the writing of them was a rare and graceful tribute from the poet to the painter – a noble recognition of work by the production of a nobler one." Swinburne repaid the compliment: "...whatever merit my song may have, it is not so complete in beauty, in tenderness and significance, in exquisite execution and delicate strength, as Whistler's picture..."

18782_NT

Symphony in White, No. 2: The Little White Girl

Focus on this artwork and explain the History of the painting and Swinburne's poem.

Whistler painted The Little White Girl in 1864, with Hiffernan as his model. In 1865 it was exhibited at the summer exhibition of the Royal Academy; Whistler had offered The White Girl for the 1862 exhibition, but it had been rejected. English critics were not too impressed by the painting; one in particular called it "bizarre", while another called it "generally grimy grey". In 1900, however, it was one of the pictures Whistler submitted to the Universal Exhibition in Paris, where he won a grand prix for paintings. The first owner of the painting was the wallpaper manufacturer John Gerald Potter, a friend and patron of Whistler. In 1893 it came into the possession of Arthur Studd, who gave it to the National Gallery in 1919. In 1951 it was transferred to the Tate Gallery.In 1862 Whistler had met the English poet Algernon Charles Swinburne, with whom he developed a close friendship. The relationship between the two was mutually beneficial. Inspired by Whistler's Little White Girl, Swinburne wrote a poem with the title "Before the Mirror". Before the painting went on exhibition at the Royal Academy, Whistler pasted the poem written on gold leaf onto the frame. The idea of decorating a painting's frame with a poem was one Whistler had gotten from Rossetti, who had similarly pasted a golden paper with one of his poems on the frame of his 1849 painting The Girlhood of Mary. To Whistler, this poem underlined his idea of the autonomous nature of the painted medium. It showed that painters were more than mere illustrators, and that visual art could be an inspiration for poetry, not just the other way around.A misconception circulated at the time that the painting had been inspired by Swinburne's poem. In a letter to a newspaper, Whistler refuted this, while still showing his respect for Swinburne's work; "those lines" he wrote "were only written, in my studio, after the picture was painted. And the writing of them was a rare and graceful tribute from the poet to the painter – a noble recognition of work by the production of a nobler one." Swinburne repaid the compliment: "...whatever merit my song may have, it is not so complete in beauty, in tenderness and significance, in exquisite execution and delicate strength, as Whistler's picture..."

18783_T

Portrait of Madame Récamier (Gros)

Explore the Description of this artwork, Portrait of Madame Récamier (Gros).

The picture is painted in oil on canvas and has dimensions of 62.3 x 51.2 cm. The portrait is in the Romantic style. It presents Madame Recamier in her middle age. A great beauty of her time, she had been portrayed in her youth by Jacques-Louis David and François Gérard, at the time when she was leading a cosmopolitan life in Paris while residing at the consulate in the city. She was known for her lavish soirees at the Palace of Rue Mont Blanc, which were attended contemporary artists, writers, actors and politicians. The portrait was painted later, but shows her fair features and graceful hands folded under her chest.

18783_NT

Portrait of Madame Récamier (Gros)

Explore the Description of this artwork.

The picture is painted in oil on canvas and has dimensions of 62.3 x 51.2 cm. The portrait is in the Romantic style. It presents Madame Recamier in her middle age. A great beauty of her time, she had been portrayed in her youth by Jacques-Louis David and François Gérard, at the time when she was leading a cosmopolitan life in Paris while residing at the consulate in the city. She was known for her lavish soirees at the Palace of Rue Mont Blanc, which were attended contemporary artists, writers, actors and politicians. The portrait was painted later, but shows her fair features and graceful hands folded under her chest.

18784_T

Portrait of Madame Récamier (Gros)

Focus on Portrait of Madame Récamier (Gros) and discuss the Provenance.

The painting was exhibited in Strossmayer Gallery, in Zagreb. It is owned by the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb. It was donated in 1903 by French nobleman Eugène-Emmanuel-Ernst Halvin, Marquis Penn.

18784_NT

Portrait of Madame Récamier (Gros)

Focus on this artwork and discuss the Provenance.

The painting was exhibited in Strossmayer Gallery, in Zagreb. It is owned by the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb. It was donated in 1903 by French nobleman Eugène-Emmanuel-Ernst Halvin, Marquis Penn.

18785_T

Fields by the Sea

How does Fields by the Sea elucidate its abstract?

Fields by the Sea (in French: Les Champs au bord de la mer) is an 1889 oil on canvas painting by Paul Gauguin. It is also called Landscape from Bretagne. The painting is exhibited at the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm. In the 1880s, Paul Gauguin occasionally went to Brittany, where he was taken by the landscape and local traditions. This painting shows an actual part of the coast, in a subjective interpretation where the decorative effects of colour fields and contours are the key element. The orange sections have shadows in a contrasting blue. This new style was called Synthetism. In autumn 1892, the artist Richard Bergh bought the painting from Gauguin's Danish wife. This painting inspired many Swedish artists.

18785_NT

Fields by the Sea

How does this artwork elucidate its abstract?

Fields by the Sea (in French: Les Champs au bord de la mer) is an 1889 oil on canvas painting by Paul Gauguin. It is also called Landscape from Bretagne. The painting is exhibited at the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm. In the 1880s, Paul Gauguin occasionally went to Brittany, where he was taken by the landscape and local traditions. This painting shows an actual part of the coast, in a subjective interpretation where the decorative effects of colour fields and contours are the key element. The orange sections have shadows in a contrasting blue. This new style was called Synthetism. In autumn 1892, the artist Richard Bergh bought the painting from Gauguin's Danish wife. This painting inspired many Swedish artists.

18786_T

Still Life with Lemons, Oranges and a Rose

Focus on Still Life with Lemons, Oranges and a Rose and analyze the abstract.

Still Life with Lemons, Oranges and a Rose is an oil-on-canvas painting by Baroque Spanish artist Francisco de Zurbarán completed in 1633. It is currently displayed at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, California as part of its permanent collection. It is the only still life signed and dated by him and is considered a masterwork of the genre.

18786_NT

Still Life with Lemons, Oranges and a Rose

Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract.

Still Life with Lemons, Oranges and a Rose is an oil-on-canvas painting by Baroque Spanish artist Francisco de Zurbarán completed in 1633. It is currently displayed at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, California as part of its permanent collection. It is the only still life signed and dated by him and is considered a masterwork of the genre.

18787_T

Still Life with Lemons, Oranges and a Rose

In Still Life with Lemons, Oranges and a Rose, how is the Composition and analysis discussed?

The painting shows three groups of objects (a saucer of four citrons, a basket of oranges, and a saucer holding both a cup of water and a rose) resting on a table against a dark background. Each group of objects are placed equidistant from one another and form a spatial and geometrical balance due to their pyramidal organization. As described by Andreas Prater: Zurbaran isolates the objects from one another – even the composition appears to be a conscious, though not excessively artificial arrangement. Against the dark background, the objects are completely static, and appear to be torn out of the context of everyday life. The human beings to whom they apparently belong have no place here. Norman Bryson writes: Lemons, Oranges, Cup and a Rose shows a visual field so purified and so perfectly composed that the familiar objects seem on the brink of transfiguration or (the inevitable word) transubstantiation. Standing at some imminent intersection with the divine, and with eternity, they exactly break with the normally human. Many of Zurbaran's works contained Christian themes, and the objects in the painting are often interpreted as having symbolic meaning as alluding to the Holy Trinity or as an homage to the Virgin Mary. Morten Lauridsen wrote in the Wall Street Journal: ...the objects in this work are symbolic offerings to the Virgin Mary. Her love, purity and chastity are signified by the rose and the cup of water. The lemons are an Easter fruit that, along with the oranges with blossoms, indicate renewed life. The table is a symbolic altar. Lauridsen has cited the painting as a major inspiration for his 1994 choral setting of O magnum mysterium.

18787_NT

Still Life with Lemons, Oranges and a Rose

In this artwork, how is the Composition and analysis discussed?

The painting shows three groups of objects (a saucer of four citrons, a basket of oranges, and a saucer holding both a cup of water and a rose) resting on a table against a dark background. Each group of objects are placed equidistant from one another and form a spatial and geometrical balance due to their pyramidal organization. As described by Andreas Prater: Zurbaran isolates the objects from one another – even the composition appears to be a conscious, though not excessively artificial arrangement. Against the dark background, the objects are completely static, and appear to be torn out of the context of everyday life. The human beings to whom they apparently belong have no place here. Norman Bryson writes: Lemons, Oranges, Cup and a Rose shows a visual field so purified and so perfectly composed that the familiar objects seem on the brink of transfiguration or (the inevitable word) transubstantiation. Standing at some imminent intersection with the divine, and with eternity, they exactly break with the normally human. Many of Zurbaran's works contained Christian themes, and the objects in the painting are often interpreted as having symbolic meaning as alluding to the Holy Trinity or as an homage to the Virgin Mary. Morten Lauridsen wrote in the Wall Street Journal: ...the objects in this work are symbolic offerings to the Virgin Mary. Her love, purity and chastity are signified by the rose and the cup of water. The lemons are an Easter fruit that, along with the oranges with blossoms, indicate renewed life. The table is a symbolic altar. Lauridsen has cited the painting as a major inspiration for his 1994 choral setting of O magnum mysterium.

18788_T

Nicolaus Copernicus Monument, Montreal

Focus on Nicolaus Copernicus Monument, Montreal and explore the abstract.

The Nicolaus Copernicus Monument (French: Monument à Nicolas Copernic), a 1966 copy of Bertel Thorvaldsen's 1830 monument in Warsaw, is installed in outside the Rio Tinto Alcan Planetarium in Montreal's Space for Life, and was previously installed in Chaboillez Square, outside the Montreal Planetarium. The statue was originally displayed for Expo 67, and was relocated to its current location in 2013. Artist: Bertel Thorvaldsen (1770–1844), Danish sculptor Materials Statue: bronze Base: concrete Dimensions: Statue: 2.7 m × 1.1 m Base: 1.8 m × 1.5 m Manufacturing: Bronze: Lauritz Rasmussen, Denmark, posthumous draw from plaster molds and original made in 1966 under the supervision of Dr. Dyveke Helsted, Thorvaldsen Museum director Inaugurated in 1967, Montreal World's Fair Acquired by the City of Montreal: 1968.

18788_NT

Nicolaus Copernicus Monument, Montreal

Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract.

The Nicolaus Copernicus Monument (French: Monument à Nicolas Copernic), a 1966 copy of Bertel Thorvaldsen's 1830 monument in Warsaw, is installed in outside the Rio Tinto Alcan Planetarium in Montreal's Space for Life, and was previously installed in Chaboillez Square, outside the Montreal Planetarium. The statue was originally displayed for Expo 67, and was relocated to its current location in 2013. Artist: Bertel Thorvaldsen (1770–1844), Danish sculptor Materials Statue: bronze Base: concrete Dimensions: Statue: 2.7 m × 1.1 m Base: 1.8 m × 1.5 m Manufacturing: Bronze: Lauritz Rasmussen, Denmark, posthumous draw from plaster molds and original made in 1966 under the supervision of Dr. Dyveke Helsted, Thorvaldsen Museum director Inaugurated in 1967, Montreal World's Fair Acquired by the City of Montreal: 1968.

18789_T

Harmonia (sculpture)

Focus on Harmonia (sculpture) and explain the abstract.

Harmonia (Finnish) or Harmoni (Swedish, Harmony) is a fountain sculpture by Achim Kühn. It is located in the Aura River in Turku, Finland.

18789_NT

Harmonia (sculpture)

Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract.

Harmonia (Finnish) or Harmoni (Swedish, Harmony) is a fountain sculpture by Achim Kühn. It is located in the Aura River in Turku, Finland.

18790_T

Portrait of Henry VIII

Explore the abstract of this artwork, Portrait of Henry VIII.

Portrait of Henry VIII is a lost painting by Hans Holbein the Younger depicting Henry VIII. It is one of the most iconic images of Henry VIII and is one of the most famous portraits of any English or British monarch. It was created in 1536–1537 as part of the Whitehall Mural showing the Tudor dynasty at the Palace of Whitehall, Westminster, which was destroyed by fire in 1698, but is still well known through many copies.

18790_NT

Portrait of Henry VIII

Explore the abstract of this artwork.

Portrait of Henry VIII is a lost painting by Hans Holbein the Younger depicting Henry VIII. It is one of the most iconic images of Henry VIII and is one of the most famous portraits of any English or British monarch. It was created in 1536–1537 as part of the Whitehall Mural showing the Tudor dynasty at the Palace of Whitehall, Westminster, which was destroyed by fire in 1698, but is still well known through many copies.

18791_T

Portrait of Henry VIII

Focus on Portrait of Henry VIII and discuss the Description.

Hans Holbein the Younger, originally from Germany, had been appointed the English King's Painter in 1536. The portrait was created to adorn the privy chamber of Henry's newly acquired Palace of Whitehall. Henry was spending vast sums to decorate the 23-acre (93,000 m2) warren of residences he had seized after the downfall of Cardinal Wolsey. The original mural featured four figures arranged around a marble plinth: Henry, his wife Jane Seymour, and his parents, Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. The mural was thus commissioned sometime during the brief marriage of Henry and Jane Seymour and was completed in 1537. It may well have been commissioned to celebrate the coming or actual birth of Henry's long-awaited heir, Edward, born in October 1537. It is not clear where in the palace the mural was located, but it may have been in the king's Privy Chamber or study, where only a very select few would have seen it.Henry is posed without any of the standard royal accoutrements such as a sword, crown, or sceptre. This was common in progressive royal portraiture of the period, for example the portraits by Titian of the Habsburg family and other royalty, and also French and German royal portraits. But Holbein's success in conveying royal majesty without such specific props is exceptional. The majestic presence is conveyed through Henry's aggressive posture, standing proudly erect, directly facing the viewer. His legs are spread apart, and arms held from his side in the pose of a warrior or a wrestler. In one hand he holds a glove, while the other reaches towards an ornate dagger hanging at his waist. Henry's clothes and surroundings are ornate, with the original painting using gold leaf to highlight the opulence. The detailed blackwork embroidery is especially notable. He wears an array of jewellery including several large rings and a pair of necklaces. His large codpiece and heavily padded shoulders further enhance the aggressive masculinity of the image.The portrait has been called a work of propaganda, designed to enhance Henry's majesty. It deliberately skews his figure to make him more imposing. Comparisons of surviving sets of Henry's armour show that his legs were much shorter in reality than in the painting. The painting also shows Henry as young and full of health, when in truth he was in his forties and had been badly injured earlier in the year in a tiltyard accident. He was also already suffering from the health problems that would affect the latter part of his life.Henry recognized the power of the image Holbein created, and encouraged other artists to copy the painting and distributed the various versions around the realm, giving them as gifts to friends and ambassadors. Major nobles would commission their own copies of the painting to show their loyalty to Henry. The many copies made of the portrait explain why it has become such an iconic image, even after the destruction of the original when Whitehall Palace was consumed by fire in 1698. It has had a lasting effect on Henry's public image. For instance, Charles Laughton's Oscar-winning performance in The Private Life of Henry VIII was modelled after the swaggering Henry depicted by Holbein.

18791_NT

Portrait of Henry VIII

Focus on this artwork and discuss the Description.

Hans Holbein the Younger, originally from Germany, had been appointed the English King's Painter in 1536. The portrait was created to adorn the privy chamber of Henry's newly acquired Palace of Whitehall. Henry was spending vast sums to decorate the 23-acre (93,000 m2) warren of residences he had seized after the downfall of Cardinal Wolsey. The original mural featured four figures arranged around a marble plinth: Henry, his wife Jane Seymour, and his parents, Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. The mural was thus commissioned sometime during the brief marriage of Henry and Jane Seymour and was completed in 1537. It may well have been commissioned to celebrate the coming or actual birth of Henry's long-awaited heir, Edward, born in October 1537. It is not clear where in the palace the mural was located, but it may have been in the king's Privy Chamber or study, where only a very select few would have seen it.Henry is posed without any of the standard royal accoutrements such as a sword, crown, or sceptre. This was common in progressive royal portraiture of the period, for example the portraits by Titian of the Habsburg family and other royalty, and also French and German royal portraits. But Holbein's success in conveying royal majesty without such specific props is exceptional. The majestic presence is conveyed through Henry's aggressive posture, standing proudly erect, directly facing the viewer. His legs are spread apart, and arms held from his side in the pose of a warrior or a wrestler. In one hand he holds a glove, while the other reaches towards an ornate dagger hanging at his waist. Henry's clothes and surroundings are ornate, with the original painting using gold leaf to highlight the opulence. The detailed blackwork embroidery is especially notable. He wears an array of jewellery including several large rings and a pair of necklaces. His large codpiece and heavily padded shoulders further enhance the aggressive masculinity of the image.The portrait has been called a work of propaganda, designed to enhance Henry's majesty. It deliberately skews his figure to make him more imposing. Comparisons of surviving sets of Henry's armour show that his legs were much shorter in reality than in the painting. The painting also shows Henry as young and full of health, when in truth he was in his forties and had been badly injured earlier in the year in a tiltyard accident. He was also already suffering from the health problems that would affect the latter part of his life.Henry recognized the power of the image Holbein created, and encouraged other artists to copy the painting and distributed the various versions around the realm, giving them as gifts to friends and ambassadors. Major nobles would commission their own copies of the painting to show their loyalty to Henry. The many copies made of the portrait explain why it has become such an iconic image, even after the destruction of the original when Whitehall Palace was consumed by fire in 1698. It has had a lasting effect on Henry's public image. For instance, Charles Laughton's Oscar-winning performance in The Private Life of Henry VIII was modelled after the swaggering Henry depicted by Holbein.

18792_T

Portrait of Henry VIII

How does Portrait of Henry VIII elucidate its Surviving images?

A full-size cartoon done by Holbein in preparation for the portrait group survives in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery, showing only the left-hand third of the group, with the two Henries. This was used to make an outline of the design on the wall, by pricking holes along the main lines and pushing powdered soot through. The cartoon differs slightly from the final version. Most notably it shows Henry standing in a more traditional three-quarters view rather than the final and iconic head-on position. Also surviving is a much smaller half-length portrait of Henry by Holbein that is today in the collection of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid. This, the only surviving painting of Henry from Holbein's hand, may also have been a preparatory study. In it Henry wears much the same clothing as the final mural but is still posed in a three-quarters view. For many years this painting was owned by the Spencer family and housed at Althorp. Financial problems forced the 7th Earl Spencer to sell much of the art collection, and it was purchased by Heinrich Thyssen. All the remaining copies of the painting are today attributed to other artists, though in most cases the name of the copyist is unknown. They vary dramatically in their quality and faithfulness to the original source. Most of the reproductions only copy the image of Henry, though a copy by Remigius van Leemput of the entire mural is in the Royal Collection, usually on display at Hampton Court Palace. This was made in 1667 for Charles II. The highest quality, and best known, copy is that currently in the collection of the Walker Art Gallery (illustration), which may have been commissioned by Edward Seymour, Jane's brother.

18792_NT

Portrait of Henry VIII

How does this artwork elucidate its Surviving images?

A full-size cartoon done by Holbein in preparation for the portrait group survives in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery, showing only the left-hand third of the group, with the two Henries. This was used to make an outline of the design on the wall, by pricking holes along the main lines and pushing powdered soot through. The cartoon differs slightly from the final version. Most notably it shows Henry standing in a more traditional three-quarters view rather than the final and iconic head-on position. Also surviving is a much smaller half-length portrait of Henry by Holbein that is today in the collection of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid. This, the only surviving painting of Henry from Holbein's hand, may also have been a preparatory study. In it Henry wears much the same clothing as the final mural but is still posed in a three-quarters view. For many years this painting was owned by the Spencer family and housed at Althorp. Financial problems forced the 7th Earl Spencer to sell much of the art collection, and it was purchased by Heinrich Thyssen. All the remaining copies of the painting are today attributed to other artists, though in most cases the name of the copyist is unknown. They vary dramatically in their quality and faithfulness to the original source. Most of the reproductions only copy the image of Henry, though a copy by Remigius van Leemput of the entire mural is in the Royal Collection, usually on display at Hampton Court Palace. This was made in 1667 for Charles II. The highest quality, and best known, copy is that currently in the collection of the Walker Art Gallery (illustration), which may have been commissioned by Edward Seymour, Jane's brother.

18793_T

Statue of Alexander Hamilton (Central Park)

Focus on Statue of Alexander Hamilton (Central Park) and analyze the abstract.

An outdoor granite sculpture of Alexander Hamilton by Carl Conrads is installed in Central Park, Manhattan, New York. Hamilton's son, John C. Hamilton, commissioned Conrads to sculpt this statue, which was dedicated on November 22, 1880, and donated to the city. Conrads used the bust of Hamilton created by the sculptor Giuseppe Ceracchi as a model for Hamilton's head.American founding father Alexander Hamilton lived nearby in Manhattan, at Hamilton Grange, when he died in 1804.

18793_NT

Statue of Alexander Hamilton (Central Park)

Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract.

An outdoor granite sculpture of Alexander Hamilton by Carl Conrads is installed in Central Park, Manhattan, New York. Hamilton's son, John C. Hamilton, commissioned Conrads to sculpt this statue, which was dedicated on November 22, 1880, and donated to the city. Conrads used the bust of Hamilton created by the sculptor Giuseppe Ceracchi as a model for Hamilton's head.American founding father Alexander Hamilton lived nearby in Manhattan, at Hamilton Grange, when he died in 1804.

18794_T

Statue of Alexander Hamilton (Central Park)

In Statue of Alexander Hamilton (Central Park), how is the Description discussed?

Hamilton is dressed in Colonial style with a wig, ruffled collar, knickers, and buckle shoes. His right hand is on his chest, while his left hand is holding a rolled document, resting on a stone column. Thirteen stars encircle the top of the pedestal. A sword, scabbard and military hat are near the base of the pedestal.Conrads, working for New England Granite Works owned by James G. Batterson, used a block of Westerly granite since it was both beautiful and durable, able to withstand the highest pressures.

18794_NT

Statue of Alexander Hamilton (Central Park)

In this artwork, how is the Description discussed?

Hamilton is dressed in Colonial style with a wig, ruffled collar, knickers, and buckle shoes. His right hand is on his chest, while his left hand is holding a rolled document, resting on a stone column. Thirteen stars encircle the top of the pedestal. A sword, scabbard and military hat are near the base of the pedestal.Conrads, working for New England Granite Works owned by James G. Batterson, used a block of Westerly granite since it was both beautiful and durable, able to withstand the highest pressures.

18795_T

Statue of Alexander Hamilton (Central Park)

Focus on Statue of Alexander Hamilton (Central Park) and explore the Dedication.

The dedication, held on November 22, 1880, a cold and windy day, was attended by nearly 500 people. Hamilton's son, John C. Hamilton, made a brief speech to the crowd and guests, including members of the Society of the Cincinnati. Hamilton described the statue:Upon a base of granite rock, with a tracing of forest trees marking its central position, and facing the rising sun, is beheld the statue of my father. With reverence for his character, and valuing the sympathies of this distinguished assemblage, I present it to this great Metropolis through your Honor, its esteemed Mayor.The Mayor, Edward Cooper, then made a brief address praising Alexander and thanking John C. for his donation.Fitting is it, my fellow-countrymen, that the statue of our illustrious townsman should stand in the chief resort of the City he adopted for his home.Since the weather was so bad, the outdoor ceremony was moved inside the Metropolitan Museum of Art where later speakers included Alexander Hamilton Bullock and Chauncey M. Depew. Depew's speech covered Hamilton as a soldier, financier and statesman.

18795_NT

Statue of Alexander Hamilton (Central Park)

Focus on this artwork and explore the Dedication.

The dedication, held on November 22, 1880, a cold and windy day, was attended by nearly 500 people. Hamilton's son, John C. Hamilton, made a brief speech to the crowd and guests, including members of the Society of the Cincinnati. Hamilton described the statue:Upon a base of granite rock, with a tracing of forest trees marking its central position, and facing the rising sun, is beheld the statue of my father. With reverence for his character, and valuing the sympathies of this distinguished assemblage, I present it to this great Metropolis through your Honor, its esteemed Mayor.The Mayor, Edward Cooper, then made a brief address praising Alexander and thanking John C. for his donation.Fitting is it, my fellow-countrymen, that the statue of our illustrious townsman should stand in the chief resort of the City he adopted for his home.Since the weather was so bad, the outdoor ceremony was moved inside the Metropolitan Museum of Art where later speakers included Alexander Hamilton Bullock and Chauncey M. Depew. Depew's speech covered Hamilton as a soldier, financier and statesman.

18796_T

Statue of Alexander Hamilton (Central Park)

Focus on Statue of Alexander Hamilton (Central Park) and explain the Legacy.

While Ceracchi, born on July 4, 1751, created busts for several founding fathers, his life did not end well. After returning to Europe, he first celebrated Napoleon with a bust, but then turned against him. After an unsuccessful plot, Napoleon had him guillotined at the Place de Grève on January 30, 1801.

18796_NT

Statue of Alexander Hamilton (Central Park)

Focus on this artwork and explain the Legacy.

While Ceracchi, born on July 4, 1751, created busts for several founding fathers, his life did not end well. After returning to Europe, he first celebrated Napoleon with a bust, but then turned against him. After an unsuccessful plot, Napoleon had him guillotined at the Place de Grève on January 30, 1801.

18797_T

The Rockox Triptych (Rubens)

Explore the abstract of this artwork, The Rockox Triptych (Rubens).

The Rockox Triptych or Epitaph of Nicolaas Rockox and His Wife Adriana Perez is a triptych painted by the Flemish painter Peter Paul Rubens between 1613 and 1615. It is in the collection of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp.

18797_NT

The Rockox Triptych (Rubens)

Explore the abstract of this artwork.

The Rockox Triptych or Epitaph of Nicolaas Rockox and His Wife Adriana Perez is a triptych painted by the Flemish painter Peter Paul Rubens between 1613 and 1615. It is in the collection of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp.

18798_T

The Rockox Triptych (Rubens)

Focus on The Rockox Triptych (Rubens) and discuss the History.

The triptych was commissioned around 1613 by Nicolaas Rockox (1560–1640) and his spouse Adriana Perez (1568–1619) for their funerary monument in the Recollects church in Antwerp. Rockox was a mayor of Antwerp and a close personal friend and important patron of Rubens. Adriana Perez was the granddaughter of Spanish conversos who had arrived in Antwerp during the early sixteenth century.The work is dated in the upper left corner of the left panel. The year was changed from '1613' to '1615', presumably because Rubens started the painting in 1613, but only finished it in 1615 and then hung in the Lady Chapel behind the choir in the Recollects church in Antwerp. In any case, the epitaph was commissioned before the death of the patrons. It often happened that funerary monuments were completed before – or vice versa: only some time after – a death. The triptych was confiscated by the French invaders in 1794 for the Musée du Louvre in Paris. In 1815 the composition was returned to Antwerp and transferred to the newly established museum in Antwerp.

18798_NT

The Rockox Triptych (Rubens)

Focus on this artwork and discuss the History.

The triptych was commissioned around 1613 by Nicolaas Rockox (1560–1640) and his spouse Adriana Perez (1568–1619) for their funerary monument in the Recollects church in Antwerp. Rockox was a mayor of Antwerp and a close personal friend and important patron of Rubens. Adriana Perez was the granddaughter of Spanish conversos who had arrived in Antwerp during the early sixteenth century.The work is dated in the upper left corner of the left panel. The year was changed from '1613' to '1615', presumably because Rubens started the painting in 1613, but only finished it in 1615 and then hung in the Lady Chapel behind the choir in the Recollects church in Antwerp. In any case, the epitaph was commissioned before the death of the patrons. It often happened that funerary monuments were completed before – or vice versa: only some time after – a death. The triptych was confiscated by the French invaders in 1794 for the Musée du Louvre in Paris. In 1815 the composition was returned to Antwerp and transferred to the newly established museum in Antwerp.

18799_T

The Rockox Triptych (Rubens)

How does The Rockox Triptych (Rubens) elucidate its Description?

The outer panels contain portraits of Rockox and his wife holding attributes of their faith: a bible and a rosary. The outer panels depict the coats of arms of the two families of the patrons.The central panel was traditionally believed to show the disbelief (or incredulity) of Thomas, the story in the Gospel of John of how the Apostle Thomas refused to believe the resurrected Jesus had appeared to the other apostles until he could see and touch Jesus' crucifixion wounds on his side. This interpretation of the scene was supported by the similarity of Rubens' composition to Caravaggio's treatment of the Thomas story, which shows Thomas bending over and inserting his finger into Jesus's side wound with a look of incredulity with two men behind him intently observing the scene. Recent scholarship has argued that Rubens did not depict the disbelief of Apostle Thomas but rather the scene of Christ's first appearance to the apostles in Jerusalem as described in the Gospel of Luke 24:36-51. In this story the 11 surviving Apostles initially refused to believe that the person appearing in their midst was the resurrected Jesus. Confronted with this disbelief Christ showed them the Crucifixion wounds on his hands and feet and encouraged them to handle the wounds and see the evidence for themselves. According to Luke, the disciples never took up this invitation to inspect the physical evidence of Christ's death. Only after Christ consumed a meal of broiled fish and a honeycomb did the disciples accept that the person was the resurrected Christ. An argument for the Rubens composition depicting the scene in Luke rather than the story of the doubting Thomas is that Rubens has intentionally omitted the wound on Christ's side while Caravaggio's Saint Thomas is totally focused on Thomas' finger probing Christ's side wound. Rubens' omission of the side wound suggests that he intended to strictly follow the text of Luke, which only mentions the wounds on Christ's hands and feet and not the side wound. By this act he also highlighted the contradictions between the various Gospel accounts of the Resurrection. This reflects the skepticism prevalent among the Antwerp elite as to the ability to achieve certainty, in particular as regards religious issues. It has further been argued that this omission was intended by Rubens to highlight the need for true believers (such as the patrons themselves) to make a leap of faith when accepting the truth of the Resurrection of Christ rather than to seek corroboration in physical evidence.For the depiction of the body of Christ, Rubens was likely inspired by the famous Antique sculpture of the Hermes Belvedere, which he had studied and whose beauty and proportions he had praised during his stay in Rome.

18799_NT

The Rockox Triptych (Rubens)

How does this artwork elucidate its Description?

The outer panels contain portraits of Rockox and his wife holding attributes of their faith: a bible and a rosary. The outer panels depict the coats of arms of the two families of the patrons.The central panel was traditionally believed to show the disbelief (or incredulity) of Thomas, the story in the Gospel of John of how the Apostle Thomas refused to believe the resurrected Jesus had appeared to the other apostles until he could see and touch Jesus' crucifixion wounds on his side. This interpretation of the scene was supported by the similarity of Rubens' composition to Caravaggio's treatment of the Thomas story, which shows Thomas bending over and inserting his finger into Jesus's side wound with a look of incredulity with two men behind him intently observing the scene. Recent scholarship has argued that Rubens did not depict the disbelief of Apostle Thomas but rather the scene of Christ's first appearance to the apostles in Jerusalem as described in the Gospel of Luke 24:36-51. In this story the 11 surviving Apostles initially refused to believe that the person appearing in their midst was the resurrected Jesus. Confronted with this disbelief Christ showed them the Crucifixion wounds on his hands and feet and encouraged them to handle the wounds and see the evidence for themselves. According to Luke, the disciples never took up this invitation to inspect the physical evidence of Christ's death. Only after Christ consumed a meal of broiled fish and a honeycomb did the disciples accept that the person was the resurrected Christ. An argument for the Rubens composition depicting the scene in Luke rather than the story of the doubting Thomas is that Rubens has intentionally omitted the wound on Christ's side while Caravaggio's Saint Thomas is totally focused on Thomas' finger probing Christ's side wound. Rubens' omission of the side wound suggests that he intended to strictly follow the text of Luke, which only mentions the wounds on Christ's hands and feet and not the side wound. By this act he also highlighted the contradictions between the various Gospel accounts of the Resurrection. This reflects the skepticism prevalent among the Antwerp elite as to the ability to achieve certainty, in particular as regards religious issues. It has further been argued that this omission was intended by Rubens to highlight the need for true believers (such as the patrons themselves) to make a leap of faith when accepting the truth of the Resurrection of Christ rather than to seek corroboration in physical evidence.For the depiction of the body of Christ, Rubens was likely inspired by the famous Antique sculpture of the Hermes Belvedere, which he had studied and whose beauty and proportions he had praised during his stay in Rome.

18800_T

The Day Dream (Rossetti)

Focus on The Day Dream (Rossetti) and analyze the abstract.

The Day Dream or, as it was initially intended to be named, Monna Primavera, is an oil-on-canvas painting by the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood founder member Dante Gabriel Rossetti. The work, which measures 158.7 centimetres (62.5 in) high by 92.7 centimetres (36.5 in) wide, was undertaken in 1880 and depicts Jane Morris in a seated position on the bough of a sycamore tree. In her hand is a small stem of honeysuckle – a token of love in the Victorian era – that may be an indication of the secret affair the artist was immersed in with her at the time. The artwork was left to the Victoria and Albert Museum by Constantine Alexander Ionides in 1900.

18800_NT

The Day Dream (Rossetti)

Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract.

The Day Dream or, as it was initially intended to be named, Monna Primavera, is an oil-on-canvas painting by the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood founder member Dante Gabriel Rossetti. The work, which measures 158.7 centimetres (62.5 in) high by 92.7 centimetres (36.5 in) wide, was undertaken in 1880 and depicts Jane Morris in a seated position on the bough of a sycamore tree. In her hand is a small stem of honeysuckle – a token of love in the Victorian era – that may be an indication of the secret affair the artist was immersed in with her at the time. The artwork was left to the Victoria and Albert Museum by Constantine Alexander Ionides in 1900.