Datasets:

naist-nlp

/

ExpArt

like 3

0451_T

The Feast of Saint Nicholas

Focus on The Feast of Saint Nicholas and explore the Painting in the Dutch Golden Age.

Jan Steen falls in the greater category of the Baroque period in painting. Baroque painting in the Netherlands was different from that in other countries in that it did not have the same idealized finery and magnificent grandeur. Instead, the Dutch style can be identified by its focus on extreme detail and realism, different even from neighboring Flanders and the splendid Flemish baroque paintings. Pictorial light: As they strived for extreme realism, Dutch Golden Age painters mastered the art of depicting the quality of light, particularly concentrating on the way that it behaved and reflected on various surfaces. Domestic detail: The revolution of oil paints in the 15th century made extreme detail possible in paintings. Dutch genre paintings like the Feast of Saint Nicholas exemplify this attention to detail in order to give an extremely realistic view of each genre scene. For example, the bread basket in the foreground of the painting shows the details of the woven wicker basket and the assorted crackers and nuts in the basket and spilled carelessly on the floor. Also in the basket the shiny outer coating of the bun and each individual seed that is used to garnish it, exemplifies not only the use of detail, but also Steen’s focus on light on various surfaces.

0451_NT

The Feast of Saint Nicholas

Focus on this artwork and explore the Painting in the Dutch Golden Age.

Jan Steen falls in the greater category of the Baroque period in painting. Baroque painting in the Netherlands was different from that in other countries in that it did not have the same idealized finery and magnificent grandeur. Instead, the Dutch style can be identified by its focus on extreme detail and realism, different even from neighboring Flanders and the splendid Flemish baroque paintings. Pictorial light: As they strived for extreme realism, Dutch Golden Age painters mastered the art of depicting the quality of light, particularly concentrating on the way that it behaved and reflected on various surfaces. Domestic detail: The revolution of oil paints in the 15th century made extreme detail possible in paintings. Dutch genre paintings like the Feast of Saint Nicholas exemplify this attention to detail in order to give an extremely realistic view of each genre scene. For example, the bread basket in the foreground of the painting shows the details of the woven wicker basket and the assorted crackers and nuts in the basket and spilled carelessly on the floor. Also in the basket the shiny outer coating of the bun and each individual seed that is used to garnish it, exemplifies not only the use of detail, but also Steen’s focus on light on various surfaces.

0452_T

The Feast of Saint Nicholas

Focus on The Feast of Saint Nicholas and explain the The painting in detail.

The focal point of the painting is the youngest daughter of the family, a golden-child, painted, in fact, in a golden smock and showing golden locks. She has behaved all year, and Saint Nicholas has rewarded her by stuffing her shoe with a doll and other treats, which she carries in her bucket. The "doll" is a representation of John the Baptist. The figure wears what appears to be a camel hair shirt and holds a long cross, both symbols tied to John the Baptist. Being the patron saint of epilepsy, the little girl's insistence on holding on to the figure may suggest she suffers from childhood convulsions or epilepsy. She is in stark contrast to her elder brother, standing to her right, who is sobbing, while another brother looks on, laughing. Apparently, the elder brother has been naughty, and his shoe, held up by an elder sister behind him, was left empty. Still there is hope for the sobbing boy. Hidden in the background, almost obscured by the draperies, his grandmother seems to beckon to him—perhaps she is hiding a gift for him too, behind the heavy curtains. In the background, a boy holds a young child and points out to the youngster the chimney through which Saint Nicholas brought the gifts. His other brother is already singing a gleeful song of thanksgiving in appreciation of the gifts he has received. The lower right hand corner of the painting actually reveals another popular style of painting. A basket of assorted traditional Christmas sweetmeats like honey cake, gingerbread, waffles, nuts, and apples is actually a miniature still life within the greater painting. Even more examples of the specially celebratory feasts of Christmastime appear on the left side of the foreground. The apple and the coin are references to the old tradition of giving hidden apples and coins to friends as presents. A special diamond shaped caked called a duivekater, leans up against the table and marks the special occasion. In another painting by Steen, the Leiden baker, this same pastry also appears. The child near the chimney is holding a symbol of the struggle between Catholics and Protestants, a gingerbread man in the shape of St. Nicholas. The delicacy, still enjoyed around the fifth of December, was seen as an example of Catholic worship of saints and was not approved of by Protestant authorities. In the seventeenth century, the baking of such figures of saints (especially St. Nicholas) was banned. In 1655 in the city of Ultrecht an ordinance was passed which forbade "the baking of likenesses in bread or cake".

0452_NT

The Feast of Saint Nicholas

Focus on this artwork and explain the The painting in detail.

The focal point of the painting is the youngest daughter of the family, a golden-child, painted, in fact, in a golden smock and showing golden locks. She has behaved all year, and Saint Nicholas has rewarded her by stuffing her shoe with a doll and other treats, which she carries in her bucket. The "doll" is a representation of John the Baptist. The figure wears what appears to be a camel hair shirt and holds a long cross, both symbols tied to John the Baptist. Being the patron saint of epilepsy, the little girl's insistence on holding on to the figure may suggest she suffers from childhood convulsions or epilepsy. She is in stark contrast to her elder brother, standing to her right, who is sobbing, while another brother looks on, laughing. Apparently, the elder brother has been naughty, and his shoe, held up by an elder sister behind him, was left empty. Still there is hope for the sobbing boy. Hidden in the background, almost obscured by the draperies, his grandmother seems to beckon to him—perhaps she is hiding a gift for him too, behind the heavy curtains. In the background, a boy holds a young child and points out to the youngster the chimney through which Saint Nicholas brought the gifts. His other brother is already singing a gleeful song of thanksgiving in appreciation of the gifts he has received. The lower right hand corner of the painting actually reveals another popular style of painting. A basket of assorted traditional Christmas sweetmeats like honey cake, gingerbread, waffles, nuts, and apples is actually a miniature still life within the greater painting. Even more examples of the specially celebratory feasts of Christmastime appear on the left side of the foreground. The apple and the coin are references to the old tradition of giving hidden apples and coins to friends as presents. A special diamond shaped caked called a duivekater, leans up against the table and marks the special occasion. In another painting by Steen, the Leiden baker, this same pastry also appears. The child near the chimney is holding a symbol of the struggle between Catholics and Protestants, a gingerbread man in the shape of St. Nicholas. The delicacy, still enjoyed around the fifth of December, was seen as an example of Catholic worship of saints and was not approved of by Protestant authorities. In the seventeenth century, the baking of such figures of saints (especially St. Nicholas) was banned. In 1655 in the city of Ultrecht an ordinance was passed which forbade "the baking of likenesses in bread or cake".

0453_T

The Feast of Saint Nicholas

Explore the Steen's legacy of this artwork, The Feast of Saint Nicholas.

Unlike Vermeer’s paintings of the same era, Jan Steen’s conscious choice to portray the chaos and imperfections that dominated this domestic scene is a commentary on the society of the time. Through this painting and his sense of realism, Steen is able to highlight ongoing flaws and problems in society. A subtle form of commentary and criticism, Jan Steen paved the way for later artists like William Hogarth in his Marriage A La Mode series to use painting as a medium for satire.

0453_NT

The Feast of Saint Nicholas

Explore the Steen's legacy of this artwork.

Unlike Vermeer’s paintings of the same era, Jan Steen’s conscious choice to portray the chaos and imperfections that dominated this domestic scene is a commentary on the society of the time. Through this painting and his sense of realism, Steen is able to highlight ongoing flaws and problems in society. A subtle form of commentary and criticism, Jan Steen paved the way for later artists like William Hogarth in his Marriage A La Mode series to use painting as a medium for satire.

0454_T

Landscape with Sea and Mountains

Focus on Landscape with Sea and Mountains and discuss the abstract.

Landscape with Sea and Mountain is an oil-on-canvas painting by Flemish painter Joos de Momper. It was painted in the early 1620s, and is now in the Museum of Prado in Madrid.

0454_NT

Landscape with Sea and Mountains

Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract.

Landscape with Sea and Mountain is an oil-on-canvas painting by Flemish painter Joos de Momper. It was painted in the early 1620s, and is now in the Museum of Prado in Madrid.

0455_T

Landscape with Sea and Mountains

How does Landscape with Sea and Mountains elucidate its Painting?

De Momper produced paintings that contained and highlighted both landscape and ordinary people engaged in common activities to varying degrees. He had some stock models which he repeated throughout his oeuvre. Such models were popular among the Flemings at the time. One of them entailed the depiction of a large landscape with some reduced figures in the foreground, carrying out everyday activities. In this painting, de Momper portrayed hunters, beggars and riders.In the background, there is an extensive view of the mountains melding into the ocean, with a view of a gulf. The painting shows the imaginative work of the Flemish artist. Flanders is a quite flat land. Momper was part of a group of Baroque Flemish landscapists who painted larger, more fantastical and seemingly old-fashioned views than other landcapists. These always featured mountainous topography and exotic lands. Rather than the more realistic landscapists being innovators, it was painters like de Momper who painted more imaginary landscapes (which were paid more) to please the sophisticated tastes of patrons and art collectors.In this painting, the influence of Pieter Bruegel the Elder is perceivable in many ways—notably, the high horizon.This painting has been part of the Spanish Royal Collection since at least the beginning of the 18th century. In 1700, it was housed at the Buen Retiro Palace in Madrid. Today, it is in the Museum of Prado in the same city.

0455_NT

Landscape with Sea and Mountains

How does this artwork elucidate its Painting?

De Momper produced paintings that contained and highlighted both landscape and ordinary people engaged in common activities to varying degrees. He had some stock models which he repeated throughout his oeuvre. Such models were popular among the Flemings at the time. One of them entailed the depiction of a large landscape with some reduced figures in the foreground, carrying out everyday activities. In this painting, de Momper portrayed hunters, beggars and riders.In the background, there is an extensive view of the mountains melding into the ocean, with a view of a gulf. The painting shows the imaginative work of the Flemish artist. Flanders is a quite flat land. Momper was part of a group of Baroque Flemish landscapists who painted larger, more fantastical and seemingly old-fashioned views than other landcapists. These always featured mountainous topography and exotic lands. Rather than the more realistic landscapists being innovators, it was painters like de Momper who painted more imaginary landscapes (which were paid more) to please the sophisticated tastes of patrons and art collectors.In this painting, the influence of Pieter Bruegel the Elder is perceivable in many ways—notably, the high horizon.This painting has been part of the Spanish Royal Collection since at least the beginning of the 18th century. In 1700, it was housed at the Buen Retiro Palace in Madrid. Today, it is in the Museum of Prado in the same city.

0456_T

Montini Altarpiece

Focus on Montini Altarpiece and analyze the abstract.

The Montini Altarpiece (Italian: Pala Montini) is an oil on canvas painting by the Italian Renaissance artist Cima da Conegliano, dating from around 1506-1507 and housed in the Galleria Nazionale of Parma, Italy. The work adopts the same scheme of several altarpieces by Giovanni Bellini, such as the San Giobbe Altarpiece. It was originally executed for the Parma Cathedral. It shows the Virgin Mary on a high throne in a mosaic-decorated apse, while offering a hand towards the bowing Saints Cosmas and Damian. A bearded Saint John the Baptist, in a sleeveless vest, is portrayed on the left. On the right, the Christ Child is blessing Saint Apollonia (whose attribute of the pincer with tooth is in the plinth before her), Saint Catherine of Alexandria (with her attribute, the broken wheel), and Saint John the Evangelist (with a book). An angel sits at the foot of the throne in the centre foreground and holds a stringed musical instrument.

0456_NT

Montini Altarpiece

Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract.

The Montini Altarpiece (Italian: Pala Montini) is an oil on canvas painting by the Italian Renaissance artist Cima da Conegliano, dating from around 1506-1507 and housed in the Galleria Nazionale of Parma, Italy. The work adopts the same scheme of several altarpieces by Giovanni Bellini, such as the San Giobbe Altarpiece. It was originally executed for the Parma Cathedral. It shows the Virgin Mary on a high throne in a mosaic-decorated apse, while offering a hand towards the bowing Saints Cosmas and Damian. A bearded Saint John the Baptist, in a sleeveless vest, is portrayed on the left. On the right, the Christ Child is blessing Saint Apollonia (whose attribute of the pincer with tooth is in the plinth before her), Saint Catherine of Alexandria (with her attribute, the broken wheel), and Saint John the Evangelist (with a book). An angel sits at the foot of the throne in the centre foreground and holds a stringed musical instrument.

0457_T

Inger on the Beach

In Inger on the Beach, how is the abstract discussed?

Inger on the Beach (also Summernacht; Norwegian: Inger på stranden, Sommernatt) is a painting by the Norwegian artist Edvard Munch. It was created in the summer of 1889, at Åsgårdstrand and is a portrait of Munch's youngest sister Inger.

0457_NT

Inger on the Beach

In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed?

Inger on the Beach (also Summernacht; Norwegian: Inger på stranden, Sommernatt) is a painting by the Norwegian artist Edvard Munch. It was created in the summer of 1889, at Åsgårdstrand and is a portrait of Munch's youngest sister Inger.

0458_T

Inger on the Beach

Focus on Inger on the Beach and explore the Description.

A young woman, identified by the title as Munch's youngest sister Inger, sits in a quiet pose, a straw hat in her hands, on a large granite rock and holds her head in profile. Her bright white dress contrasts with the green mossy stones and the blues and purples of the sea water behind her, which, as the alternative titles indicate, suggests Nordic summer nights. Only a few pots and a fishing boat behind her betray human life in the countryside. Munch used a similar pose for his 1884 interior composition Morning, featuring a girl on the edge of a bed.

0458_NT

Inger on the Beach

Focus on this artwork and explore the Description.

A young woman, identified by the title as Munch's youngest sister Inger, sits in a quiet pose, a straw hat in her hands, on a large granite rock and holds her head in profile. Her bright white dress contrasts with the green mossy stones and the blues and purples of the sea water behind her, which, as the alternative titles indicate, suggests Nordic summer nights. Only a few pots and a fishing boat behind her betray human life in the countryside. Munch used a similar pose for his 1884 interior composition Morning, featuring a girl on the edge of a bed.

0459_T

Inger on the Beach

Focus on Inger on the Beach and explain the History.

In the summer of 1889, Munch rented a small house in Åsgårdstrand, a small Norwegian coastal town on the Oslofjord, which served as a summer resort of many citizens and artists from nearby Kristiana, now Oslo. Among them were Munch's friends Christian Krohg and Frits Thaulow. The place acquired great importance in the life of Munch: Here he spent not only many summers, and bought in 1897 a house, it was the place for many important pictures of his life work. In 1889, his first year in Åsgårdstrand, he painted Inger on the beach. The model was his youngest sister Inger, who had previously modeled for him. The painting was preceded by a series of studies Munch made between 9 and 11 pm to study the lighting conditions of Norwegian summer night.

0459_NT

Inger on the Beach

Focus on this artwork and explain the History.

In the summer of 1889, Munch rented a small house in Åsgårdstrand, a small Norwegian coastal town on the Oslofjord, which served as a summer resort of many citizens and artists from nearby Kristiana, now Oslo. Among them were Munch's friends Christian Krohg and Frits Thaulow. The place acquired great importance in the life of Munch: Here he spent not only many summers, and bought in 1897 a house, it was the place for many important pictures of his life work. In 1889, his first year in Åsgårdstrand, he painted Inger on the beach. The model was his youngest sister Inger, who had previously modeled for him. The painting was preceded by a series of studies Munch made between 9 and 11 pm to study the lighting conditions of Norwegian summer night.

0460_T

Inger on the Beach

Explore the Interpretation of this artwork, Inger on the Beach.

Ulrich Bischoff suggests that—unlike Munch's earlier 1884 portrait of the then 14-year-old Inger in her black confirmation dress, a youthful work in the tradition of portraiture of the 19th century—Inger on the beach shows the future importance of the artist. Munch displays in this work his artistic repertoire for expressing loneliness, melancholy and angst, and foreshadows the compositional breakdown in horizontal and vertical axes of the later Frieze of Life.For Reinhold Heller the painting conveys less a time of day than a mood, created by the contours and dimensional representations of figure and stones, the nonexistent horizon between sky and sea, and the almost monochrome blue. Anni Carlsson describes the work as a "character landscape" in which the beach, sea and figure are incorporated into a mood and the boundaries cancel space. In a later statement, Munch compared seaside rocks with living creatures, goblins and sea spirits: "In the night's light which forms have fantastic tones". Nicolay Stang compares the "simplification of form and color, which is a colored form against the other" to Paul Gauguin, a painter whose work was familiar to Munch before 1889.Tone Skedsmo says Inger on the beach is in the tradition of the naturalistic painters of the "Fleksum colony", namely Christian Skredsvig, Eilif Peterssen, Erik Werenskiold, Gerhard Munthe, Kitty Kielland and Harriet Backer, who were known for their quiet summer night moods. While the composition of a figure in a landscape and the elegiac mood are typical of the work of Munch's Norwegian colleagues, Munch's simplification of forms to express a mood adds elements of modernity. He may have been influenced by Puvis de Chavannes and Jules Bastien-Lepage, whom he had met at the Exposition Universelle d'Anvers (1885), in the rigid countenance of Ingers with her blank stare and the dry handling of the paint.

0460_NT

Inger on the Beach

Explore the Interpretation of this artwork.

Ulrich Bischoff suggests that—unlike Munch's earlier 1884 portrait of the then 14-year-old Inger in her black confirmation dress, a youthful work in the tradition of portraiture of the 19th century—Inger on the beach shows the future importance of the artist. Munch displays in this work his artistic repertoire for expressing loneliness, melancholy and angst, and foreshadows the compositional breakdown in horizontal and vertical axes of the later Frieze of Life.For Reinhold Heller the painting conveys less a time of day than a mood, created by the contours and dimensional representations of figure and stones, the nonexistent horizon between sky and sea, and the almost monochrome blue. Anni Carlsson describes the work as a "character landscape" in which the beach, sea and figure are incorporated into a mood and the boundaries cancel space. In a later statement, Munch compared seaside rocks with living creatures, goblins and sea spirits: "In the night's light which forms have fantastic tones". Nicolay Stang compares the "simplification of form and color, which is a colored form against the other" to Paul Gauguin, a painter whose work was familiar to Munch before 1889.Tone Skedsmo says Inger on the beach is in the tradition of the naturalistic painters of the "Fleksum colony", namely Christian Skredsvig, Eilif Peterssen, Erik Werenskiold, Gerhard Munthe, Kitty Kielland and Harriet Backer, who were known for their quiet summer night moods. While the composition of a figure in a landscape and the elegiac mood are typical of the work of Munch's Norwegian colleagues, Munch's simplification of forms to express a mood adds elements of modernity. He may have been influenced by Puvis de Chavannes and Jules Bastien-Lepage, whom he had met at the Exposition Universelle d'Anvers (1885), in the rigid countenance of Ingers with her blank stare and the dry handling of the paint.

0461_T

Inger on the Beach

Focus on Inger on the Beach and discuss the Reception.

A few months after its completion, the painting (originally titled Evening) was displayed for the first time at the annual autumn exhibition in Kristiana, while Munch had already traveled to Paris to collect impressions of the local art scene through which his symbolism would find expressive style. The contemporary criticism was extremely hostile.Morgenbladet called the painting pure "gibberish" and said the public was being bamboozled. Other voices criticized the "easily thrown stones that seem to be made only from soft, shapeless substance".Aftenposten described the seated figure as "a physical entity with no trace of life and expression, as untrue in the form as in the color [...] On the whole this seems to us to have such a low artistic value that his presence at the exhibition itself is difficult to defend. " Dagbladet nevertheless pointed out: "To understand it, one must constantly have in mind that Munch poet is - a person who can be entirely covered by a mood to her and her playing devotedly, without regard to conventional laws and forms, often with a tendency to fantasy. "Munch's Norwegian colleague Erik Werenskiold bought it directly from the exhibition in 1909; it was acquired in 1924 by the Norwegian art collector Rasmus Meyer as part of his public collections in Bergen.

0461_NT

Inger on the Beach

Focus on this artwork and discuss the Reception.

A few months after its completion, the painting (originally titled Evening) was displayed for the first time at the annual autumn exhibition in Kristiana, while Munch had already traveled to Paris to collect impressions of the local art scene through which his symbolism would find expressive style. The contemporary criticism was extremely hostile.Morgenbladet called the painting pure "gibberish" and said the public was being bamboozled. Other voices criticized the "easily thrown stones that seem to be made only from soft, shapeless substance".Aftenposten described the seated figure as "a physical entity with no trace of life and expression, as untrue in the form as in the color [...] On the whole this seems to us to have such a low artistic value that his presence at the exhibition itself is difficult to defend. " Dagbladet nevertheless pointed out: "To understand it, one must constantly have in mind that Munch poet is - a person who can be entirely covered by a mood to her and her playing devotedly, without regard to conventional laws and forms, often with a tendency to fantasy. "Munch's Norwegian colleague Erik Werenskiold bought it directly from the exhibition in 1909; it was acquired in 1924 by the Norwegian art collector Rasmus Meyer as part of his public collections in Bergen.

0462_T

A Lady Writing a Letter

How does A Lady Writing a Letter elucidate its abstract?

A Lady Writing a Letter (also known as A Lady Writing) is an oil on canvas painting attributed to 17th century Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer. It is believed to have been completed by artist during his mature phase, in the mid-to-late 1660s. The work is in the collection of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

0462_NT

A Lady Writing a Letter

How does this artwork elucidate its abstract?

A Lady Writing a Letter (also known as A Lady Writing) is an oil on canvas painting attributed to 17th century Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer. It is believed to have been completed by artist during his mature phase, in the mid-to-late 1660s. The work is in the collection of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

0463_T

A Lady Writing a Letter

Focus on A Lady Writing a Letter and analyze the Description of the scene.

The lady in the painting is shown writing a letter while sitting at a table in a room. She appears to have been interrupted, as she has turned her head away from the letter to look towards the viewer, while she continues to hold the quill in her right hand. She is dressed elegantly in a lemon-yellow morning jacket and wears a necklace with ten pearls and two pearl earrings. The number of compositional elements in the painting are limited and the focus is the woman's figure and the sparse objects in the woman and the table are brought near to the picture plane, which emphasizes the directness of her gaze. All small objects in the painting are placed on the table. This concentration of small forms stand in contrasts with the large forms used in the rest of the composition, which create a geometric framework for the figure.On the back of the wall is a painting, which covers two-thirds of the width of the composition. The painting of which only a part is shown in the picture depicts a large string instrument, possibly a double bass. It is known from the inventory of Vermeer's estate that he owned a vanitas still life with a double bass and skull. Based on a comparison of the depicted work and its description in the inventory of Vermeer's estate with the known vanitas still lifes of the Dutch painter Cornelis van der Meulen it is likely that the painting on the wall is by van der Meulen's hand. Vanitas paintings were popular in the Dutch Republic. They aim to evoke the meaninglessness of worldly aspirations and the transient nature of all human endeavors often by contrasting symbols of death and decay with luxurious objects or other items which relate to worldly success. Vermeer's intention in including a vanitas painting in a rich interior with an elegantly dressed lady was likely to convey this philosophical vanitas message that all worldly possessions and achievements are ultimately doomed to fail and end in death.Many of the objects seen in the painting, such as the woman's coat, the cloth on the table, and the string of pearls, also appear in other Vermeer works. This has led to speculation that he or his family members owned the objects, and even that the subjects of the paintings are his relatives. It has often been suggested that in his paintings, Vermeer sought to depict in his models that which he could not give to his wife and family: calm and affluence.

0463_NT

A Lady Writing a Letter

Focus on this artwork and analyze the Description of the scene.

The lady in the painting is shown writing a letter while sitting at a table in a room. She appears to have been interrupted, as she has turned her head away from the letter to look towards the viewer, while she continues to hold the quill in her right hand. She is dressed elegantly in a lemon-yellow morning jacket and wears a necklace with ten pearls and two pearl earrings. The number of compositional elements in the painting are limited and the focus is the woman's figure and the sparse objects in the woman and the table are brought near to the picture plane, which emphasizes the directness of her gaze. All small objects in the painting are placed on the table. This concentration of small forms stand in contrasts with the large forms used in the rest of the composition, which create a geometric framework for the figure.On the back of the wall is a painting, which covers two-thirds of the width of the composition. The painting of which only a part is shown in the picture depicts a large string instrument, possibly a double bass. It is known from the inventory of Vermeer's estate that he owned a vanitas still life with a double bass and skull. Based on a comparison of the depicted work and its description in the inventory of Vermeer's estate with the known vanitas still lifes of the Dutch painter Cornelis van der Meulen it is likely that the painting on the wall is by van der Meulen's hand. Vanitas paintings were popular in the Dutch Republic. They aim to evoke the meaninglessness of worldly aspirations and the transient nature of all human endeavors often by contrasting symbols of death and decay with luxurious objects or other items which relate to worldly success. Vermeer's intention in including a vanitas painting in a rich interior with an elegantly dressed lady was likely to convey this philosophical vanitas message that all worldly possessions and achievements are ultimately doomed to fail and end in death.Many of the objects seen in the painting, such as the woman's coat, the cloth on the table, and the string of pearls, also appear in other Vermeer works. This has led to speculation that he or his family members owned the objects, and even that the subjects of the paintings are his relatives. It has often been suggested that in his paintings, Vermeer sought to depict in his models that which he could not give to his wife and family: calm and affluence.

0464_T

A Lady Writing a Letter

In A Lady Writing a Letter, how is the History of the painting discussed?

Like many other paintings by Vermeer, the painting was made for his patron Pieter van Ruijven (1624–1674). From him it passed possibly by inheritance to his wife, Maria de Knuijt [died 1681]. From her it then possibly passed by inheritance to her daughter, Magdalena van Ruijven and from her possibly by inheritance to her husband, Jacobus Abrahamsz. Dissius. After his death the work was auctioned in Amsterdam on 16 May 1696. Until the early nineteenth century, the work remained in the hands of several Dutch owners until it was bought in 1827 by the Belgian politician François de Robiano (1778–1836) in whose family it remained until it was bought in 1907 by the American banker John Pierpont Morgan (1837–1913). In 1946 the American art collector Horace Havemeyer (1886–1956) acquired the work. Harry Waldron Havemeyer and Horace Havemeyer donated the work to the National Gallery of Art in 1962.

0464_NT

A Lady Writing a Letter

In this artwork, how is the History of the painting discussed?

Like many other paintings by Vermeer, the painting was made for his patron Pieter van Ruijven (1624–1674). From him it passed possibly by inheritance to his wife, Maria de Knuijt [died 1681]. From her it then possibly passed by inheritance to her daughter, Magdalena van Ruijven and from her possibly by inheritance to her husband, Jacobus Abrahamsz. Dissius. After his death the work was auctioned in Amsterdam on 16 May 1696. Until the early nineteenth century, the work remained in the hands of several Dutch owners until it was bought in 1827 by the Belgian politician François de Robiano (1778–1836) in whose family it remained until it was bought in 1907 by the American banker John Pierpont Morgan (1837–1913). In 1946 the American art collector Horace Havemeyer (1886–1956) acquired the work. Harry Waldron Havemeyer and Horace Havemeyer donated the work to the National Gallery of Art in 1962.

0465_T

Man with a Glove

Focus on Man with a Glove and explore the History.

The work originates from the Gonzaga family's collection at Mantua. It was acquired by Charles I of England in 1627. Sometime after his beheading in 1649, the painting was auctioned and bought by the Cologne banker Eberhard Jabach. Eventually, it came in the possession of Louis XIV of France, and was transferred from the Palace of Versailles to the Louvre in 1792. The figure has not been identified with certainty. He could be Girolamo Adorno, mentioned in a 1527 letter from Pietro Aretino to Federico Gonzaga, or Giambattista Malatesta, an agent of the Gonzaga in Venice. According to another hypothesis, he could be Ferrante Gonzaga, who was sixteen years old in 1523.

0465_NT

Man with a Glove

Focus on this artwork and explore the History.

The work originates from the Gonzaga family's collection at Mantua. It was acquired by Charles I of England in 1627. Sometime after his beheading in 1649, the painting was auctioned and bought by the Cologne banker Eberhard Jabach. Eventually, it came in the possession of Louis XIV of France, and was transferred from the Palace of Versailles to the Louvre in 1792. The figure has not been identified with certainty. He could be Girolamo Adorno, mentioned in a 1527 letter from Pietro Aretino to Federico Gonzaga, or Giambattista Malatesta, an agent of the Gonzaga in Venice. According to another hypothesis, he could be Ferrante Gonzaga, who was sixteen years old in 1523.

0466_T

Man with a Glove

Focus on Man with a Glove and explain the Description.

The painting portrays a three-quarters view of a male figure set against a flat black background. He appears to be looking at an indefinite point to the left of the canvas, with his left arm laid on his knee. He could be pointing at his gloves, which were a fashion statement at the time. He is dressed in a wide jacket and a white shirt, in the fashion of the period. The man's gloved left hand holds a second leather glove; an accessory used by the most refined gentlemen of the time. His right hand is adorned with a golden ring, a symbol of richness, and a necklace decorated with a sapphire and a pearl. The use of a parapet in portraits was a common device of the young Titian.

0466_NT

Man with a Glove

Focus on this artwork and explain the Description.

The painting portrays a three-quarters view of a male figure set against a flat black background. He appears to be looking at an indefinite point to the left of the canvas, with his left arm laid on his knee. He could be pointing at his gloves, which were a fashion statement at the time. He is dressed in a wide jacket and a white shirt, in the fashion of the period. The man's gloved left hand holds a second leather glove; an accessory used by the most refined gentlemen of the time. His right hand is adorned with a golden ring, a symbol of richness, and a necklace decorated with a sapphire and a pearl. The use of a parapet in portraits was a common device of the young Titian.

0467_T

Man with a Glove

Explore the In popular culture of this artwork, Man with a Glove.

In Fred Saberhagen's Berserker series in the short story Patron of the Arts (first appeared in Worlds of If, Aug 1965), a human artist and a Berserker machine discuss the value of art and of this specific painting on a starship in the future after a space battle near the Sol system. In this short story, the Earth-Descended peoples place all of humanity's important artworks on an evacuation starship to preserve the works by sending them to Tau Epsilon.In Albert Camus's 1971 novel A Happy Death, a character called Eliane, whom Patrice Meursault describes as an Idealist, thinks that she looks like the figure from the painting and even has various reproductions of the painting decorating her room.

0467_NT

Man with a Glove

Explore the In popular culture of this artwork.

In Fred Saberhagen's Berserker series in the short story Patron of the Arts (first appeared in Worlds of If, Aug 1965), a human artist and a Berserker machine discuss the value of art and of this specific painting on a starship in the future after a space battle near the Sol system. In this short story, the Earth-Descended peoples place all of humanity's important artworks on an evacuation starship to preserve the works by sending them to Tau Epsilon.In Albert Camus's 1971 novel A Happy Death, a character called Eliane, whom Patrice Meursault describes as an Idealist, thinks that she looks like the figure from the painting and even has various reproductions of the painting decorating her room.

0468_T

Self-Portrait with Death Playing the Fiddle

Focus on Self-Portrait with Death Playing the Fiddle and discuss the abstract.

Self-Portrait with Death Playing the Fiddle is a painted self-portrait executed in 1872 by the Swiss symbolist artist Arnold Böcklin. He first exhibited at the Kunstverein München in the same year, establishing his reputation in Munich's artistic community. It is now in the Alte Nationalgalerie, in Berlin. Painted in Munich, the painting depicts a bearded Böcklin stalked by a personification of death playing a single-stringed violin in an intimation of his mortality. It is an echo of an earlier painting of Sir Brian Tuke by an anonymous painter c.1540, part of the collection of the Alte Pinakothek in Munich, in which the shadowing figure of Death is pointing at an hourglass. Death and mortality is a repeating theme in several of Böcklin's works, including Plague, two versions of War, and five versions of Isle of the Dead. According to Alma Mahler, the wife of the composer Gustav Mahler, her husband was "under the spell" of Böcklin's self-portrait when writing the scherzo movement of his Fourth Symphony.

0468_NT

Self-Portrait with Death Playing the Fiddle

Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract.

Self-Portrait with Death Playing the Fiddle is a painted self-portrait executed in 1872 by the Swiss symbolist artist Arnold Böcklin. He first exhibited at the Kunstverein München in the same year, establishing his reputation in Munich's artistic community. It is now in the Alte Nationalgalerie, in Berlin. Painted in Munich, the painting depicts a bearded Böcklin stalked by a personification of death playing a single-stringed violin in an intimation of his mortality. It is an echo of an earlier painting of Sir Brian Tuke by an anonymous painter c.1540, part of the collection of the Alte Pinakothek in Munich, in which the shadowing figure of Death is pointing at an hourglass. Death and mortality is a repeating theme in several of Böcklin's works, including Plague, two versions of War, and five versions of Isle of the Dead. According to Alma Mahler, the wife of the composer Gustav Mahler, her husband was "under the spell" of Böcklin's self-portrait when writing the scherzo movement of his Fourth Symphony.

0469_T

Boston Massacre Monument

How does Boston Massacre Monument elucidate its abstract?

The Boston Massacre Monument, also known as the Crispus Attucks Monument and Victory, is an outdoor bronze memorial by Adolph Robert Kraus, installed in Boston Common, in Boston, Massachusetts, United States.

0469_NT

Boston Massacre Monument

How does this artwork elucidate its abstract?

The Boston Massacre Monument, also known as the Crispus Attucks Monument and Victory, is an outdoor bronze memorial by Adolph Robert Kraus, installed in Boston Common, in Boston, Massachusetts, United States.

0470_T

Boston Massacre Monument

Focus on Boston Massacre Monument and analyze the Description and history.

The monument was dedicated on November 14, 1889. The designer of the base was Boston architect Carl Fehmer. The monument was surveyed by the Smithsonian Institution's "Save Outdoor Sculpture!" program in 1993. The survey's description says, "The monument consists of an allegorical female figure representing the Spirit of the Revolution standing atop a granite base in front of a tall granite obelisk adorned with a band of thirteen stars around the top. The female figure is loosely draped and holds a furled American flag in her proper left hand. Her proper right arm is raised and in her proper right hand she holds a broken piece of chain. Beneath her proper right foot is a broken British crown. An eagle ready to take flight is perched by her proper left foot. On the base, beneath the female figure, is a bronze relief plaque depicting the Boston Massacre. It shows five men, Crispus Attucks, Samuel Maverick, James Caldwell, Samuel Gray, and Patrick Carr, slain by the British soldiers in front of the Massachusetts State House." These deaths took place on March 7, 1770.Crispus Attucks was a freed African American who was the first to die in the line of fire between the British and the colonist. Crispus Attucks was a part of the first group to start attacking the British soldiers with throwing balls of ice and stones at the troops. Attucks was glorified by some colonists as an emblem of resisting against the British power.

0470_NT

Boston Massacre Monument

Focus on this artwork and analyze the Description and history.

The monument was dedicated on November 14, 1889. The designer of the base was Boston architect Carl Fehmer. The monument was surveyed by the Smithsonian Institution's "Save Outdoor Sculpture!" program in 1993. The survey's description says, "The monument consists of an allegorical female figure representing the Spirit of the Revolution standing atop a granite base in front of a tall granite obelisk adorned with a band of thirteen stars around the top. The female figure is loosely draped and holds a furled American flag in her proper left hand. Her proper right arm is raised and in her proper right hand she holds a broken piece of chain. Beneath her proper right foot is a broken British crown. An eagle ready to take flight is perched by her proper left foot. On the base, beneath the female figure, is a bronze relief plaque depicting the Boston Massacre. It shows five men, Crispus Attucks, Samuel Maverick, James Caldwell, Samuel Gray, and Patrick Carr, slain by the British soldiers in front of the Massachusetts State House." These deaths took place on March 7, 1770.Crispus Attucks was a freed African American who was the first to die in the line of fire between the British and the colonist. Crispus Attucks was a part of the first group to start attacking the British soldiers with throwing balls of ice and stones at the troops. Attucks was glorified by some colonists as an emblem of resisting against the British power.

0471_T

Lady Lilith

In Lady Lilith, how is the abstract discussed?

Lady Lilith is an oil painting by Dante Gabriel Rossetti first painted in 1866–1868 using his mistress Fanny Cornforth as the model, then altered in 1872–73 to show the face of Alexa Wilding. The subject is Lilith, who was, according to ancient Judaic myth, "the first wife of Adam" and is associated with the seduction of men and the murder of children. She is shown as a "powerful and evil temptress" and as "an iconic, Amazon-like female with long, flowing hair."Rossetti overpainted Cornforth's face, perhaps at the suggestion of his client, shipping magnate Frederick Richards Leyland, who displayed the painting in his drawing room with five other Rossetti "stunners." After Leyland's death, the painting was purchased by Samuel Bancroft and Bancroft's estate donated it in 1935 to the Delaware Art Museum where it is now displayed. The painting forms a pair with Sibylla Palmifera, painted 1866–1870, also with Wilding as the model. Lady Lilith represents the body's beauty, according to Rossetti's sonnet inscribed on the frame. Sibylla Palmifera represents the soul's beauty, according to the Rossetti sonnet on its frame. A large 1867 replica of Lady Lilith, painted by Rossetti in watercolor, which shows the face of Cornforth, is now owned by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. It has a verse from Goethe's Faust as translated by Shelley on a label attached by Rossetti to its frame:"Beware of her fair hair, for she excellsAll women in the magic of her locks,And when she twines them round a young man's neckshe will not ever set him free again."

0471_NT

Lady Lilith

In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed?

Lady Lilith is an oil painting by Dante Gabriel Rossetti first painted in 1866–1868 using his mistress Fanny Cornforth as the model, then altered in 1872–73 to show the face of Alexa Wilding. The subject is Lilith, who was, according to ancient Judaic myth, "the first wife of Adam" and is associated with the seduction of men and the murder of children. She is shown as a "powerful and evil temptress" and as "an iconic, Amazon-like female with long, flowing hair."Rossetti overpainted Cornforth's face, perhaps at the suggestion of his client, shipping magnate Frederick Richards Leyland, who displayed the painting in his drawing room with five other Rossetti "stunners." After Leyland's death, the painting was purchased by Samuel Bancroft and Bancroft's estate donated it in 1935 to the Delaware Art Museum where it is now displayed. The painting forms a pair with Sibylla Palmifera, painted 1866–1870, also with Wilding as the model. Lady Lilith represents the body's beauty, according to Rossetti's sonnet inscribed on the frame. Sibylla Palmifera represents the soul's beauty, according to the Rossetti sonnet on its frame. A large 1867 replica of Lady Lilith, painted by Rossetti in watercolor, which shows the face of Cornforth, is now owned by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. It has a verse from Goethe's Faust as translated by Shelley on a label attached by Rossetti to its frame:"Beware of her fair hair, for she excellsAll women in the magic of her locks,And when she twines them round a young man's neckshe will not ever set him free again."

0472_T

Lady Lilith

Focus on Lady Lilith and explore the Painting.

On 9 April 1866 Rossetti wrote to Frederick Leyland: As you continue to express a wish to have a good picture of mine, I write you word of another I have now begun, which will be one of my best. The picture represents a lady combing her hair. It is the same size as Palmifera – 36 x 31 inches, and will be full of material, – a landscape seen in the background. Its color chiefly white and silver, with a great mass of golden hair. Lady Lilith was commissioned by Leyland in early 1866 and delivered to him in early 1869 at a price of £472. 10 s. Two studies, dated to 1866, exist for the work, but two notebook sketches may be from an earlier date. The painting focuses on Lilith, but is meant to be a "Modern Lilith" rather than the mythological figure. She contemplates her own beauty in her hand-mirror. The painting is one of a series of Rossetti paintings of such "mirror pictures." Other painters soon followed with their own mirror pictures with narcissistic female figures, but Lady Lilith has been considered "the epitome" of the type.Rossetti's assistant, Henry Treffry Dunn, states that the final part painted was the flowery background. He and G. P. Boyce gathered large baskets of white roses from John Ruskin's garden in Denmark Hill, and returned with them to Rossetti's house in Chelsea. Dunn is thought to have later recreated Rossetti's picture of Lady Lilith in coloured chalk.Sources disagree on whether Leyland or Rossetti initiated the repainting, but the major change was the substitution of Alexa Wilding's face for Cornforth's. The painting was returned to Rossetti in February 1872, and he completed the repainting on 2 December at Kelmscott Manor before returning it to Leyland. Alexa was born Alice Wilding and was about 27 years old at the time of the repainting. Rossetti paid her a retainer of £1 per week for modelling. Wilding's face had earlier replaced the face in another painting Venus Verticordia. Despite Rossetti's record of serial liaisons with his models, there is little or no evidence of a romantic attachment between Wilding and Rossetti.Characteristics of the painting that are commonly noted include the overt flower symbolism, and the unreal, crowded, depthless space, perhaps best shown by the bizarre mirror that reflects both the candles in the "room" and an exterior garden scene.The white roses may indicate cold, sensuous love and reflect the tradition that roses first "blushed" or turned red upon meeting Eve. The poppy in the lower right hand corner may indicate sleep and forgetfulness and reflect the languid nature of Lilith. Foxgloves, near the mirror, may indicate insincerity.One of Rossetti's assistants, Charles Fairfax Murray, who had created copies of his master's work claimed that some paintings later attributed to Rossetti were actually painted by his assistants. Murray claimed that the Lady Lilith in the Metropolitan Museum of Art was painted by Henry Treffry Dunn and was just "touched up" by Rossetti.

0472_NT

Lady Lilith

Focus on this artwork and explore the Painting.

On 9 April 1866 Rossetti wrote to Frederick Leyland: As you continue to express a wish to have a good picture of mine, I write you word of another I have now begun, which will be one of my best. The picture represents a lady combing her hair. It is the same size as Palmifera – 36 x 31 inches, and will be full of material, – a landscape seen in the background. Its color chiefly white and silver, with a great mass of golden hair. Lady Lilith was commissioned by Leyland in early 1866 and delivered to him in early 1869 at a price of £472. 10 s. Two studies, dated to 1866, exist for the work, but two notebook sketches may be from an earlier date. The painting focuses on Lilith, but is meant to be a "Modern Lilith" rather than the mythological figure. She contemplates her own beauty in her hand-mirror. The painting is one of a series of Rossetti paintings of such "mirror pictures." Other painters soon followed with their own mirror pictures with narcissistic female figures, but Lady Lilith has been considered "the epitome" of the type.Rossetti's assistant, Henry Treffry Dunn, states that the final part painted was the flowery background. He and G. P. Boyce gathered large baskets of white roses from John Ruskin's garden in Denmark Hill, and returned with them to Rossetti's house in Chelsea. Dunn is thought to have later recreated Rossetti's picture of Lady Lilith in coloured chalk.Sources disagree on whether Leyland or Rossetti initiated the repainting, but the major change was the substitution of Alexa Wilding's face for Cornforth's. The painting was returned to Rossetti in February 1872, and he completed the repainting on 2 December at Kelmscott Manor before returning it to Leyland. Alexa was born Alice Wilding and was about 27 years old at the time of the repainting. Rossetti paid her a retainer of £1 per week for modelling. Wilding's face had earlier replaced the face in another painting Venus Verticordia. Despite Rossetti's record of serial liaisons with his models, there is little or no evidence of a romantic attachment between Wilding and Rossetti.Characteristics of the painting that are commonly noted include the overt flower symbolism, and the unreal, crowded, depthless space, perhaps best shown by the bizarre mirror that reflects both the candles in the "room" and an exterior garden scene.The white roses may indicate cold, sensuous love and reflect the tradition that roses first "blushed" or turned red upon meeting Eve. The poppy in the lower right hand corner may indicate sleep and forgetfulness and reflect the languid nature of Lilith. Foxgloves, near the mirror, may indicate insincerity.One of Rossetti's assistants, Charles Fairfax Murray, who had created copies of his master's work claimed that some paintings later attributed to Rossetti were actually painted by his assistants. Murray claimed that the Lady Lilith in the Metropolitan Museum of Art was painted by Henry Treffry Dunn and was just "touched up" by Rossetti.

0473_T

Lady Lilith

Focus on Lady Lilith and explain the Body's Beauty and Soul's Beauty.

Rossetti began painting Sibylla Palmifera before persuading George Rae to commission it in late 1865. The final price was 400 guineas. He worked sporadically on the painting and only completed it in December 1870. In June 1869 he received £200 from Leyland for a copy that was never completed. The name Palmifera means "palm-bearer," and the model holds a palm in her hands. The palm, together with the inclusion of butterflies, may indicate the spiritual nature of the painting. This painting also has flower symbolism – using red roses and poppies in this case – and an unrealistic background space.Rossetti wrote the sonnet "Soul's Beauty" to accompany the painting Sibylla Palmifera, just as he wrote the sonnet "Lilith" to accompany the painting Lady Lilith. Both pairs of poems and pictures were first published, side by side, in Algernon Charles Swinburne's Notes on the Royal Academy Exhibition in 1868. In 1870 the poems were published again in Rossetti's Sonnets for Pictures. It was not until 1881 however that the sonnets became a true pair. At that time Rossetti decided to directly contrast the two poems, renamed "Lilith" to "Body's Beauty" and published them on consecutive pages of his book The House of Life as sonnets LXXVII and LXXVIII.

0473_NT

Lady Lilith

Focus on this artwork and explain the Body's Beauty and Soul's Beauty.

Rossetti began painting Sibylla Palmifera before persuading George Rae to commission it in late 1865. The final price was 400 guineas. He worked sporadically on the painting and only completed it in December 1870. In June 1869 he received £200 from Leyland for a copy that was never completed. The name Palmifera means "palm-bearer," and the model holds a palm in her hands. The palm, together with the inclusion of butterflies, may indicate the spiritual nature of the painting. This painting also has flower symbolism – using red roses and poppies in this case – and an unrealistic background space.Rossetti wrote the sonnet "Soul's Beauty" to accompany the painting Sibylla Palmifera, just as he wrote the sonnet "Lilith" to accompany the painting Lady Lilith. Both pairs of poems and pictures were first published, side by side, in Algernon Charles Swinburne's Notes on the Royal Academy Exhibition in 1868. In 1870 the poems were published again in Rossetti's Sonnets for Pictures. It was not until 1881 however that the sonnets became a true pair. At that time Rossetti decided to directly contrast the two poems, renamed "Lilith" to "Body's Beauty" and published them on consecutive pages of his book The House of Life as sonnets LXXVII and LXXVIII.

0474_T

Lady Lilith

Explore the Feminist perspective of this artwork, Lady Lilith.

In myth, Lilith is a powerful, threatening, sexual woman who resists domination by men. Thus she has been considered a symbol of the feminist movement. In the painting she concentrates on her own beauty, luxuriates in her free, sensual hair, lacks the usual Victorian corset, and wears "clothes that look as if they are soon to be removed."In The Power of Women's Hair in the Victorian Imagination, Elizabeth G. Gitter writes:The more abundant the hair, the more potent the sexual invitation implied in its display. For folk, literary and psychoanalytic traditions agree that the luxuriance of the hair is an index of vigorous sexuality, even of wantonness.

0474_NT

Lady Lilith

Explore the Feminist perspective of this artwork.

In myth, Lilith is a powerful, threatening, sexual woman who resists domination by men. Thus she has been considered a symbol of the feminist movement. In the painting she concentrates on her own beauty, luxuriates in her free, sensual hair, lacks the usual Victorian corset, and wears "clothes that look as if they are soon to be removed."In The Power of Women's Hair in the Victorian Imagination, Elizabeth G. Gitter writes:The more abundant the hair, the more potent the sexual invitation implied in its display. For folk, literary and psychoanalytic traditions agree that the luxuriance of the hair is an index of vigorous sexuality, even of wantonness.

0475_T

Lady Lilith

Focus on Lady Lilith and discuss the Display and exhibitions.

The painting hung in Leyland's drawing room with five other Rossetti paintings that Leyland called "stunners."Samuel Bancroft, a textile mill owner from Wilmington, Delaware, bought the painting at Leyland's estate sale, held at Christie's on 28 May 1892, for £525. He bought at least four other Rossetti paintings at the same time and later accumulated one of the largest collections of Pre-Raphaelite art outside of the United Kingdom. The Bancroft estate donated Bancroft's extensive collection of paintings in 1935 to the Delaware Art Museum.The painting was exhibited in London in 1883, and Philadelphia in 1892 while Bancroft's house was being expanded to hold his new paintings. It has also been exhibited in Richmond, Virginia (1982), Tokyo (1990), Birmingham and Williamstown (2000), and in London, Liverpool and Amsterdam (2003). In 2012 it was exhibited at the Tate Gallery in London, and from 17 February to 19 May 2013 it was on exhibit at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

0475_NT

Lady Lilith

Focus on this artwork and discuss the Display and exhibitions.

The painting hung in Leyland's drawing room with five other Rossetti paintings that Leyland called "stunners."Samuel Bancroft, a textile mill owner from Wilmington, Delaware, bought the painting at Leyland's estate sale, held at Christie's on 28 May 1892, for £525. He bought at least four other Rossetti paintings at the same time and later accumulated one of the largest collections of Pre-Raphaelite art outside of the United Kingdom. The Bancroft estate donated Bancroft's extensive collection of paintings in 1935 to the Delaware Art Museum.The painting was exhibited in London in 1883, and Philadelphia in 1892 while Bancroft's house was being expanded to hold his new paintings. It has also been exhibited in Richmond, Virginia (1982), Tokyo (1990), Birmingham and Williamstown (2000), and in London, Liverpool and Amsterdam (2003). In 2012 it was exhibited at the Tate Gallery in London, and from 17 February to 19 May 2013 it was on exhibit at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

0476_T

Symphony of Color

How does Symphony of Color elucidate its abstract?

A Symphony of Color (2008) is a mosaic by artist Donna Pinter of Roswell, Georgia. It is located in the Virginia Highland neighborhood of Atlanta, along Barnett Street north of Drewry Street.

0476_NT

Symphony of Color

How does this artwork elucidate its abstract?

A Symphony of Color (2008) is a mosaic by artist Donna Pinter of Roswell, Georgia. It is located in the Virginia Highland neighborhood of Atlanta, along Barnett Street north of Drewry Street.

0477_T

Marlowe portrait

Focus on Marlowe portrait and analyze the abstract.

The putative Marlowe portrait is an unsigned portrait on wooden panel, dated 1585, which was discovered in 1952 or 1953 at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. It has been proposed that the portrait depicts the English playwright Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593), though several scholars have suggested that this is unlikely.

0477_NT

Marlowe portrait

Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract.

The putative Marlowe portrait is an unsigned portrait on wooden panel, dated 1585, which was discovered in 1952 or 1953 at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. It has been proposed that the portrait depicts the English playwright Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593), though several scholars have suggested that this is unlikely.

0478_T

Marlowe portrait

In Marlowe portrait, how is the Discovery discussed?

The painting was discovered in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge in 1952 or 1953. Contradictory accounts of its discovery exist. One account dates the discovery of the portrait to late 1952, during major renovations to the college's Old Court which destroyed many ancient interiors. The wood panels had been used to support a gas heater installed in a student's room, above the room that had been assigned to Marlowe 370 years earlier. When a new heater was installed, the panels were discarded and put in a skip. The room's occupant recovered them for reuse, but noticed the dirty and badly-damaged portrait and took the pieces to the college librarian.A conflicting account states that the portrait was discovered in 1953, during renovations of the college Master's lodge. A passer-by noticed two pieces of wood amongst a pile of builder's rubble that had laid in the rain for several days, which proved to be the two parts of the portrait.The portrait's history from its 1585 creation to its 20th century rediscovery is unknown. It is not listed in an 1884 inventory of paintings held by Corpus Christi College, nor in a 1790 catalogue of Cambridge University's paintings by Robert Masters. The wood is badly split and has nail holes, suggesting that the panels had been put to various mundane uses over the years.

0478_NT

Marlowe portrait

In this artwork, how is the Discovery discussed?

The painting was discovered in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge in 1952 or 1953. Contradictory accounts of its discovery exist. One account dates the discovery of the portrait to late 1952, during major renovations to the college's Old Court which destroyed many ancient interiors. The wood panels had been used to support a gas heater installed in a student's room, above the room that had been assigned to Marlowe 370 years earlier. When a new heater was installed, the panels were discarded and put in a skip. The room's occupant recovered them for reuse, but noticed the dirty and badly-damaged portrait and took the pieces to the college librarian.A conflicting account states that the portrait was discovered in 1953, during renovations of the college Master's lodge. A passer-by noticed two pieces of wood amongst a pile of builder's rubble that had laid in the rain for several days, which proved to be the two parts of the portrait.The portrait's history from its 1585 creation to its 20th century rediscovery is unknown. It is not listed in an 1884 inventory of paintings held by Corpus Christi College, nor in a 1790 catalogue of Cambridge University's paintings by Robert Masters. The wood is badly split and has nail holes, suggesting that the panels had been put to various mundane uses over the years.

0479_T

Marlowe portrait

Focus on Marlowe portrait and explore the Identification with Marlowe.

The first to suggest a connection between the portrait and Christopher Marlowe was John Patrick Tuer Bury (son of Robert Gregg Bury), the college librarian and university lecturer in Modern History, who saw it soon after its discovery. Marlowe finished his BA at Corpus Christi in 1584 and began his MA studies there, and it was suggested, based on his baptism date of February 1564, that he would have been aged 21 in 1585.Bury consulted with Bruce Dickins, chair of Anglo-Saxon, G K Adams of the National Portrait Gallery, John Bakeless, an American biographer of Marlowe, Frederick S. Boas, professor of English Literature and former president of the Elizabethan Literature Society and Rosemary Freeman, reader at Birkbeck College. The portrait was confirmed to be an Elizabethan work. In March 1953, it was decided to commission the painting's restoration by the London firm of W. Holder and Son. The firm no longer exists, nor any known records about what their restoration involved.Some sources credit Calvin Hoffman, a prominent proponent of the Marlovian theory of Shakespeare authorship, with the idea that the portrait depicted Marlowe, although he only proposed this in 1955.The identification of the sitter remains uncertain. No other portrait of Marlowe is known to exist.: 214  The portrait could be of another student, though of the 27 wooden portraits the college keeps as of 2014, only 3 are known college members, all masters. Apart from "Marlowe", a further 4 of the 27 are unidentified. Alternatively, the portrait could be of a non-student as the man is not wearing the clothing prescribed for scholars – an ankle-length, dull-coloured gown – and has long hair, while scholars were required to wear their hair short; although it is known that many students at the time broke these regulations, including wearing silk and velvet.Scholars Oliver Rackham and Peter Roberts have suggested that the age on the painting does not match Marlowe's age. They argue that ætatis suæ 21 means "in his 21st year", i.e. aged 20; which, combined with Marlowe's baptism date of February 1563 in the old style dates used at the time, would require the sitter to be at least a year younger than Marlowe.Some suggest Marlowe would not have afforded to commission such a portrait as he was supported by a scholarship; although there is some indirect evidence that in 1584 Marlowe began receiving a significant additional income from an unknown source.: 118  It has been suggested it would be unlikely for the College to commission a portrait of an ordinary student, and that Marlowe was an undistinguished scholar, coming 199 out of 241 students in his BA, making this even less likely. It is also unlikely the college would have displayed a portrait of a student violating the university's own dress regulations.

0479_NT

Marlowe portrait

Focus on this artwork and explore the Identification with Marlowe.

The first to suggest a connection between the portrait and Christopher Marlowe was John Patrick Tuer Bury (son of Robert Gregg Bury), the college librarian and university lecturer in Modern History, who saw it soon after its discovery. Marlowe finished his BA at Corpus Christi in 1584 and began his MA studies there, and it was suggested, based on his baptism date of February 1564, that he would have been aged 21 in 1585.Bury consulted with Bruce Dickins, chair of Anglo-Saxon, G K Adams of the National Portrait Gallery, John Bakeless, an American biographer of Marlowe, Frederick S. Boas, professor of English Literature and former president of the Elizabethan Literature Society and Rosemary Freeman, reader at Birkbeck College. The portrait was confirmed to be an Elizabethan work. In March 1953, it was decided to commission the painting's restoration by the London firm of W. Holder and Son. The firm no longer exists, nor any known records about what their restoration involved.Some sources credit Calvin Hoffman, a prominent proponent of the Marlovian theory of Shakespeare authorship, with the idea that the portrait depicted Marlowe, although he only proposed this in 1955.The identification of the sitter remains uncertain. No other portrait of Marlowe is known to exist.: 214  The portrait could be of another student, though of the 27 wooden portraits the college keeps as of 2014, only 3 are known college members, all masters. Apart from "Marlowe", a further 4 of the 27 are unidentified. Alternatively, the portrait could be of a non-student as the man is not wearing the clothing prescribed for scholars – an ankle-length, dull-coloured gown – and has long hair, while scholars were required to wear their hair short; although it is known that many students at the time broke these regulations, including wearing silk and velvet.Scholars Oliver Rackham and Peter Roberts have suggested that the age on the painting does not match Marlowe's age. They argue that ætatis suæ 21 means "in his 21st year", i.e. aged 20; which, combined with Marlowe's baptism date of February 1563 in the old style dates used at the time, would require the sitter to be at least a year younger than Marlowe.Some suggest Marlowe would not have afforded to commission such a portrait as he was supported by a scholarship; although there is some indirect evidence that in 1584 Marlowe began receiving a significant additional income from an unknown source.: 118  It has been suggested it would be unlikely for the College to commission a portrait of an ordinary student, and that Marlowe was an undistinguished scholar, coming 199 out of 241 students in his BA, making this even less likely. It is also unlikely the college would have displayed a portrait of a student violating the university's own dress regulations.

0480_T

Marlowe portrait

Focus on Marlowe portrait and explain the Recent history.

In the years since its discovery, the portrait has become firmly associated with Marlowe, and it is often used to depict him. According to Nicholl, a general need to put a face on a famous name has worked in favour of the painting being accepted as a depiction of Marlowe. As of 2014, the portrait hangs in the Old Combination Room (a dining room) at Corpus Christi College, with no label identifying the sitter or artist.Actress Angelina Jolie has the painting's motto tattooed on her lower stomach. "Pro-ana" websites have also used the motto.

0480_NT

Marlowe portrait

Focus on this artwork and explain the Recent history.

In the years since its discovery, the portrait has become firmly associated with Marlowe, and it is often used to depict him. According to Nicholl, a general need to put a face on a famous name has worked in favour of the painting being accepted as a depiction of Marlowe. As of 2014, the portrait hangs in the Old Combination Room (a dining room) at Corpus Christi College, with no label identifying the sitter or artist.Actress Angelina Jolie has the painting's motto tattooed on her lower stomach. "Pro-ana" websites have also used the motto.

0481_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Explore the abstract of this artwork, Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan.

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on 16 November 1581 is a painting by Russian realist artist Ilya Repin made between 1883 and 1885. It depicts the grief-stricken Russian tsar Ivan the Terrible cradling his dying son, the Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich, shortly after the elder Ivan had dealt a fatal blow to his son's head in a fit of anger. The painting portrays the anguish and remorse on the face of the elder Ivan and the gentleness of the dying Tsarevich, forgiving his father with his tears. Repin used Grigoriy Myasoyedov, his friend and fellow artist, as the model for Ivan the Terrible, and writer Vsevolod Garshin for the Tsarevich. In 1885, upon completion of the oil-on-canvas work, Repin sold it to Pavel Tretyakov for display in his Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow. It has been called one of Russia's most famous and controversial paintings, and is normally on display in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow.

0481_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Explore the abstract of this artwork.

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on 16 November 1581 is a painting by Russian realist artist Ilya Repin made between 1883 and 1885. It depicts the grief-stricken Russian tsar Ivan the Terrible cradling his dying son, the Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich, shortly after the elder Ivan had dealt a fatal blow to his son's head in a fit of anger. The painting portrays the anguish and remorse on the face of the elder Ivan and the gentleness of the dying Tsarevich, forgiving his father with his tears. Repin used Grigoriy Myasoyedov, his friend and fellow artist, as the model for Ivan the Terrible, and writer Vsevolod Garshin for the Tsarevich. In 1885, upon completion of the oil-on-canvas work, Repin sold it to Pavel Tretyakov for display in his Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow. It has been called one of Russia's most famous and controversial paintings, and is normally on display in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow.

0482_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Focus on Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan and discuss the Background and inspiration.

Repin began working on the painting in Moscow. A first overall sketch, with the character of the Tsar turned to his right, dates from 1882. The idea of the painting, according to Repin, is linked to his confrontation with the themes of violence, revenge and blood during the political events of 1881; additional sources of inspiration were the music of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov and the bullfights Repin had witnessed during a trip to Western Europe in 1883.

0482_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Focus on this artwork and discuss the Background and inspiration.

Repin began working on the painting in Moscow. A first overall sketch, with the character of the Tsar turned to his right, dates from 1882. The idea of the painting, according to Repin, is linked to his confrontation with the themes of violence, revenge and blood during the political events of 1881; additional sources of inspiration were the music of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov and the bullfights Repin had witnessed during a trip to Western Europe in 1883.

0483_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan, how is the Political violence of the Background and inspiration elucidated?

On 13 March 1881 in Saint Petersburg, the reformist Russian Tsar Alexander II was assassinated by a bomb thrown by Ignacy Hryniewiecki, a member of the revolutionary organization Narodnaya Volya. The bomb also seriously injured Hryniewiecki, who died a few hours later. Hryniewiecki's accomplices, the Pervomartovtsy, were executed on 13 April 1881. Repin, who visited Saint Petersburg in mid-February 1881 for the opening of the Wanderers' exhibition, was present when the tsar was killed. He returned there in April and attended the execution of the attack's perpetrators and their accomplices.Repin's friend, poet Vasily Kamensky, wrote in his memoirs Repin had told him "how he had witnessed the public execution of the Pervomartovtsy" (Zhelyabov, Perovskaya, Kibalchich, Mikhailov and Rysakov). "Ah, as it was nightmare times," – sighed Repin – "complex, appalling. I even remember each board on the breasts, with the inscription "regicide". I even remember Zhelyabov's gray pants, Perovskaya's black hat".Several of Repin's next paintings; Refusal of confession (Отказ от исповеди; 1881), Arrest of a propagandist (Арест пропагандиста, 1882) and They Did Not Expect Him (Не ждали; 1884–1888); were devoted to the Pervomartovtsy. He also wrote several times in his memoirs about this period of his creations: "This year followed like a trace of blood, our feelings were bruised by the horrors of the contemporary world, it was frightening to confront it: it will end badly! ... We had to look for a way out at this key moment in history." For Repin, there was a link between the events of 1881 and the scene represented in Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on 16 November 1581 from exactly 300 years earlier, in which the Tsar is the murderer.

0483_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In this artwork, how is the Political violence of the Background and inspiration elucidated?

On 13 March 1881 in Saint Petersburg, the reformist Russian Tsar Alexander II was assassinated by a bomb thrown by Ignacy Hryniewiecki, a member of the revolutionary organization Narodnaya Volya. The bomb also seriously injured Hryniewiecki, who died a few hours later. Hryniewiecki's accomplices, the Pervomartovtsy, were executed on 13 April 1881. Repin, who visited Saint Petersburg in mid-February 1881 for the opening of the Wanderers' exhibition, was present when the tsar was killed. He returned there in April and attended the execution of the attack's perpetrators and their accomplices.Repin's friend, poet Vasily Kamensky, wrote in his memoirs Repin had told him "how he had witnessed the public execution of the Pervomartovtsy" (Zhelyabov, Perovskaya, Kibalchich, Mikhailov and Rysakov). "Ah, as it was nightmare times," – sighed Repin – "complex, appalling. I even remember each board on the breasts, with the inscription "regicide". I even remember Zhelyabov's gray pants, Perovskaya's black hat".Several of Repin's next paintings; Refusal of confession (Отказ от исповеди; 1881), Arrest of a propagandist (Арест пропагандиста, 1882) and They Did Not Expect Him (Не ждали; 1884–1888); were devoted to the Pervomartovtsy. He also wrote several times in his memoirs about this period of his creations: "This year followed like a trace of blood, our feelings were bruised by the horrors of the contemporary world, it was frightening to confront it: it will end badly! ... We had to look for a way out at this key moment in history." For Repin, there was a link between the events of 1881 and the scene represented in Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on 16 November 1581 from exactly 300 years earlier, in which the Tsar is the murderer.

0484_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In the context of Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan, analyze the Music of Rimsky-Korsakov of the Background and inspiration.

Another inspiration for the painting was the symphonic suite Antar, which was composed by the Russian Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov and is composed of four movements; the opening movement, vengeance, power and love.The music of Antar's bloody second movement inspired Repin the most; he said in his memoirs: In Moscow in 1881, while I was listening to a new piece by Rimsky-Korsakov, Vengeance ("Месть"). This sound wave took possession of me, and I thought, that I could not embody the state of the soul I had known under the influence of this music in a painting. I then remembered Tsar Ivan.

0484_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In the context of this artwork, analyze the Music of Rimsky-Korsakov of the Background and inspiration.

Another inspiration for the painting was the symphonic suite Antar, which was composed by the Russian Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov and is composed of four movements; the opening movement, vengeance, power and love.The music of Antar's bloody second movement inspired Repin the most; he said in his memoirs: In Moscow in 1881, while I was listening to a new piece by Rimsky-Korsakov, Vengeance ("Месть"). This sound wave took possession of me, and I thought, that I could not embody the state of the soul I had known under the influence of this music in a painting. I then remembered Tsar Ivan.

0485_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Describe the characteristics of the Trip to Europe in Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan's Background and inspiration.

Repin's painting is also striking because of its representation of blood, which is seeping from the Tsarevich's temple and remains on the floor in a puddle after his father has picked him up. According to Repin's memoirs, he was influenced by his 1883 trip to Europe, where he witnessed bullfights:Misfortune, death, murder and blood make up a hole that draws you into it with force. At the same time, there are so many bloody paintings in all the exhibitions. And I, probably overtaken by all this bloodiness, on my return home, started the bloody scene of Ivan the Terrible with his son. And this painting had a great success.

0485_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Describe the characteristics of the Trip to Europe in this artwork's Background and inspiration.

Repin's painting is also striking because of its representation of blood, which is seeping from the Tsarevich's temple and remains on the floor in a puddle after his father has picked him up. According to Repin's memoirs, he was influenced by his 1883 trip to Europe, where he witnessed bullfights:Misfortune, death, murder and blood make up a hole that draws you into it with force. At the same time, there are so many bloody paintings in all the exhibitions. And I, probably overtaken by all this bloodiness, on my return home, started the bloody scene of Ivan the Terrible with his son. And this painting had a great success.

0486_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Focus on Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan and explore the Creation.

According to Repin, the design and painting of the canvas were a lengthy process:I painted in tears, I was tortured, I tormented myself, I corrected again and again what I had painted, I hid it, in a sickly disappointment, no longer believing in my strength, I erased what I had painted. I had already erased, and I was attacking the canvas again. Every minute was terrible to me. I was disappointed with this painting, I hid it. And she made the same impression on my friends. But something pushed me towards her, and again I was working on it. The painting depicts one of the rooms of the Chambers of the Romanov Boyars from the 17th century while the accessories, throne, mirror, and kaftan were painted at the Kremlin Armoury. The chest is part of the collections of the Rumyantsev Museum.Most of Repin's work involved the choice of models; he sought the faces he needed from acquaintances and passers-by. The models for Ivan the Terrible were the painter Grigoriy Myasoyedov and the composer Pavel Blaramberg, while the landscape painter Vladimir Menk and writer Vsevolod Garshin modelled for Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich. When he was asked about choosing Garshin, Repin replied:There is a predestination in Garshin's face that struck me. He has the face of a man irreparably condemned to perish. This is what was needed for my Tsarevich. Sketches and portraits of the models Ivan the Terrible kills his son – detail According to Polish-American art historian Elizabeth Kridl Valkenier, the incorporation of Garshin's face completes and allows her to be fully satisfied with the painting.

0486_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Focus on this artwork and explore the Creation.

According to Repin, the design and painting of the canvas were a lengthy process:I painted in tears, I was tortured, I tormented myself, I corrected again and again what I had painted, I hid it, in a sickly disappointment, no longer believing in my strength, I erased what I had painted. I had already erased, and I was attacking the canvas again. Every minute was terrible to me. I was disappointed with this painting, I hid it. And she made the same impression on my friends. But something pushed me towards her, and again I was working on it. The painting depicts one of the rooms of the Chambers of the Romanov Boyars from the 17th century while the accessories, throne, mirror, and kaftan were painted at the Kremlin Armoury. The chest is part of the collections of the Rumyantsev Museum.Most of Repin's work involved the choice of models; he sought the faces he needed from acquaintances and passers-by. The models for Ivan the Terrible were the painter Grigoriy Myasoyedov and the composer Pavel Blaramberg, while the landscape painter Vladimir Menk and writer Vsevolod Garshin modelled for Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich. When he was asked about choosing Garshin, Repin replied:There is a predestination in Garshin's face that struck me. He has the face of a man irreparably condemned to perish. This is what was needed for my Tsarevich. Sketches and portraits of the models Ivan the Terrible kills his son – detail According to Polish-American art historian Elizabeth Kridl Valkenier, the incorporation of Garshin's face completes and allows her to be fully satisfied with the painting.

0487_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Explore the Moment represented about the Analysis of this artwork, Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan.

Although the painting is sometimes called Ivan the Terrible kills his son, Repin did not paint the moment at which the Tsar hits the Tsarevich. The work does not represent violence but its resolution. Ivan the Terrible holds his son. His eyes "bulging with horror, despair and madness", he embraces him by the waist. Tsarevich Ivan, weeping, gently waves his hand.Two modifications to the preliminary sketches show the distance established by the painter with the altercation; the sceptre with which the Tsar strikes his son's temple is in his hand in the first sketches while in the final painting, it is on the floor in front of them. The bloodstain where the Tsarevich's head rests on the floor, which is very visible in the oil sketch Repin made in 1883, and which he kept and resumed later, is erased in the shadows of the final painting. Ivan Ivanovich's dress no longer has a long bloodstain. The represented moment becomes one of remorse, forgiveness and love. The painting also shows, in its centre, the reality and the irreversibility of the tsar's act: the blood flows from his son's temple and the attempt Ivan the Terrible makes to contain it with his left hand is hopeless.

0487_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Explore the Moment represented about the Analysis of this artwork.

Although the painting is sometimes called Ivan the Terrible kills his son, Repin did not paint the moment at which the Tsar hits the Tsarevich. The work does not represent violence but its resolution. Ivan the Terrible holds his son. His eyes "bulging with horror, despair and madness", he embraces him by the waist. Tsarevich Ivan, weeping, gently waves his hand.Two modifications to the preliminary sketches show the distance established by the painter with the altercation; the sceptre with which the Tsar strikes his son's temple is in his hand in the first sketches while in the final painting, it is on the floor in front of them. The bloodstain where the Tsarevich's head rests on the floor, which is very visible in the oil sketch Repin made in 1883, and which he kept and resumed later, is erased in the shadows of the final painting. Ivan Ivanovich's dress no longer has a long bloodstain. The represented moment becomes one of remorse, forgiveness and love. The painting also shows, in its centre, the reality and the irreversibility of the tsar's act: the blood flows from his son's temple and the attempt Ivan the Terrible makes to contain it with his left hand is hopeless.

0488_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In the context of Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan, discuss the Description and composition of the Analysis.

The painting's 199.5 cm × 254 cm (78.5 in × 100.0 in) canvas is one of Repin's largest works; its dimensions are comparable to those of the Barge Haulers on the Volga and the Religious Procession in Kursk Governorate.The two characters are crisscrossed with each other in the centre of the painting. They are depicted in a twilight and stand out from both the foreground of the canvas and the darker background. The gesture with which Ivan the Terrible hugs and supports his son's waist is reminiscent of the paintings The Return of the Prodigal Son and David and Jonathan by Dutch painter Rembrandt, which Repin studied and admired since his formative years, and are housed in the Hermitage Museum.The construction of the painting is based on objects and pieces of furniture that are distributed around the characters: the crumpled red carpets on the floor, the Tsarevich's boots, the sceptre, the throne that was overturned during the argument, one of the ornamental balls that sparkles at the level of the son's eyes, and his cushion. Behind the figures, other pieces of furniture, such as the stove, the mirror of the Armor Museum and the chest of the Rumyantsev Palace, are less discernible. The back wall of the room is partly covered with a red-and-black diamond pattern. At the top left is a narrow bay.

0488_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In the context of this artwork, discuss the Description and composition of the Analysis.

The painting's 199.5 cm × 254 cm (78.5 in × 100.0 in) canvas is one of Repin's largest works; its dimensions are comparable to those of the Barge Haulers on the Volga and the Religious Procession in Kursk Governorate.The two characters are crisscrossed with each other in the centre of the painting. They are depicted in a twilight and stand out from both the foreground of the canvas and the darker background. The gesture with which Ivan the Terrible hugs and supports his son's waist is reminiscent of the paintings The Return of the Prodigal Son and David and Jonathan by Dutch painter Rembrandt, which Repin studied and admired since his formative years, and are housed in the Hermitage Museum.The construction of the painting is based on objects and pieces of furniture that are distributed around the characters: the crumpled red carpets on the floor, the Tsarevich's boots, the sceptre, the throne that was overturned during the argument, one of the ornamental balls that sparkles at the level of the son's eyes, and his cushion. Behind the figures, other pieces of furniture, such as the stove, the mirror of the Armor Museum and the chest of the Rumyantsev Palace, are less discernible. The back wall of the room is partly covered with a red-and-black diamond pattern. At the top left is a narrow bay.

0489_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan, how is the Colours and material of the Analysis elucidated?

Repin wrote he refused "the acrobatics of the brush and painting for the sake of painting" and that "the beauty, the touch or the virtuosity of the brush" was not the only important things because he had always pursued "the essential: the body, as a body". Ivan the Terrible and his Son Ivan is "painted with such a diversity of craftsmanship and with such a rich palette of dark chords" that it is, according to Russian painter and art critic Ivan Kramskoi, an "authentic orchestra". An "intense red" or "blood red", and "thick and saturated crimson red" predominates. It is painted with pure colour, with no additions, and then reworked by the painter with an extraordinary diversity of shades.The scarlet red of the blood flowing from the wound on the Tsarevich's temple stands out, as do the reflections on the folds of his kaftan, and finally the dark-red puddle of blood on the red carpet, and this tension of colours resonates with the tragedy depicted on the canvas. In the centre, the magnificence of the Tsarevich's kaftan contrasts with the darkness of Ivan the Terrible's black coat. Repin breaks this combination of blood red, pink and dark-brown tones with the complementary tones of the green of the Tsarevich's boots and the deep-blue of his velvet trousers. White light, "cold and weak", which penetrates through a narrow bay, attenuates this tension of colours and further reinforces the dramatic tension of the scene.

0489_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In this artwork, how is the Colours and material of the Analysis elucidated?

Repin wrote he refused "the acrobatics of the brush and painting for the sake of painting" and that "the beauty, the touch or the virtuosity of the brush" was not the only important things because he had always pursued "the essential: the body, as a body". Ivan the Terrible and his Son Ivan is "painted with such a diversity of craftsmanship and with such a rich palette of dark chords" that it is, according to Russian painter and art critic Ivan Kramskoi, an "authentic orchestra". An "intense red" or "blood red", and "thick and saturated crimson red" predominates. It is painted with pure colour, with no additions, and then reworked by the painter with an extraordinary diversity of shades.The scarlet red of the blood flowing from the wound on the Tsarevich's temple stands out, as do the reflections on the folds of his kaftan, and finally the dark-red puddle of blood on the red carpet, and this tension of colours resonates with the tragedy depicted on the canvas. In the centre, the magnificence of the Tsarevich's kaftan contrasts with the darkness of Ivan the Terrible's black coat. Repin breaks this combination of blood red, pink and dark-brown tones with the complementary tones of the green of the Tsarevich's boots and the deep-blue of his velvet trousers. White light, "cold and weak", which penetrates through a narrow bay, attenuates this tension of colours and further reinforces the dramatic tension of the scene.

0490_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In the context of Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan, analyze the Symbolic scope of the Analysis.

For Repin and his contemporaries, the painting's first symbolic function is to express the existence of violence and moral rejection, which must be the object. According to Ivan Kramskoi; "it seems that a human being, after having carefully looked at this painting, even if only once, will be forever protected from the wild beast he has, as they say, in him".The representation of the aftermath of the father's altercation with his son is a historical episode and illustrates a person's "eternal" capacity to physically harm their neighbour. The painting can be understood as a pictorial parable of the phrase "you shall not kill".The picture also seemed to approach a more-particularly religious inspiration, showing "Christian love and forgiveness" can repair crime, even infanticide. The tsarevich's gesture and face are "almost like that of an icon", the tear that runs down the wing of his nose seem to depict forgiveness. The similarity of the gesture of Ivan the Terrible's right arm with those of the figures in the two Rembrandt paintings also aligns with this position.In the interpretation of the work, the personality of the writer Vsevolod Garshin provides additional details. In this period, Repin used Garshin as a model in several other paintings, including Portrait (1884) and the large painting They Did Not Expect Him, in which Garshin poses for the main character. Work on They Did Not Expect Him began in 1884 and ended the year of Garshin's suicide in 1888.Repin appreciated Vsevolod Garshin, whom he considered an "incarnation of the divine" during their friendship and after his death. He wrote "his pensive eyes, often mixed with tears provoked by some injustice, his humble and delicate attitude, his angelic personality, with the purity of a dove, were those of a God". Repin's painting refers to Garshin's physical features, his personality and his deeply peaceful thought.

0490_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In the context of this artwork, analyze the Symbolic scope of the Analysis.

For Repin and his contemporaries, the painting's first symbolic function is to express the existence of violence and moral rejection, which must be the object. According to Ivan Kramskoi; "it seems that a human being, after having carefully looked at this painting, even if only once, will be forever protected from the wild beast he has, as they say, in him".The representation of the aftermath of the father's altercation with his son is a historical episode and illustrates a person's "eternal" capacity to physically harm their neighbour. The painting can be understood as a pictorial parable of the phrase "you shall not kill".The picture also seemed to approach a more-particularly religious inspiration, showing "Christian love and forgiveness" can repair crime, even infanticide. The tsarevich's gesture and face are "almost like that of an icon", the tear that runs down the wing of his nose seem to depict forgiveness. The similarity of the gesture of Ivan the Terrible's right arm with those of the figures in the two Rembrandt paintings also aligns with this position.In the interpretation of the work, the personality of the writer Vsevolod Garshin provides additional details. In this period, Repin used Garshin as a model in several other paintings, including Portrait (1884) and the large painting They Did Not Expect Him, in which Garshin poses for the main character. Work on They Did Not Expect Him began in 1884 and ended the year of Garshin's suicide in 1888.Repin appreciated Vsevolod Garshin, whom he considered an "incarnation of the divine" during their friendship and after his death. He wrote "his pensive eyes, often mixed with tears provoked by some injustice, his humble and delicate attitude, his angelic personality, with the purity of a dove, were those of a God". Repin's painting refers to Garshin's physical features, his personality and his deeply peaceful thought.

0491_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Describe the characteristics of the A representation of power in Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan's Analysis.

The political significance of the painting cannot be eluded because of the reactions to which it was immediately the subject. Repin combined Ivan the Terrible's killing of his son with the assassination of Alexander II. Neither Repin nor Russian art critics expanded upon this point.French critics wrote about the point. According to Alain Besançon, the tsarevich's murder by the tsar is a central scene of the Russian myth, which Repin was the first to represent: the history of Russia would be built on the sacrifice of sons killed by their fathers.Pierre Gonneau supports a converging position, stressing this sacrificial vision refers "to the symbolic roots of the monarchy because the sacrificed tsarevich finds himself in a position to embody the forces opposing the authority of the tsar". It makes a link with the trial of Tsarevich Alexis, son of Peter the Great, and his death as a result of torture. This other conflict between a father and his son is the theme of Nikolai Ge's 1871 painting Peter the Great interrogates Tsarevich Alexis in Peterhof.

0491_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Describe the characteristics of the A representation of power in this artwork's Analysis.

The political significance of the painting cannot be eluded because of the reactions to which it was immediately the subject. Repin combined Ivan the Terrible's killing of his son with the assassination of Alexander II. Neither Repin nor Russian art critics expanded upon this point.French critics wrote about the point. According to Alain Besançon, the tsarevich's murder by the tsar is a central scene of the Russian myth, which Repin was the first to represent: the history of Russia would be built on the sacrifice of sons killed by their fathers.Pierre Gonneau supports a converging position, stressing this sacrificial vision refers "to the symbolic roots of the monarchy because the sacrificed tsarevich finds himself in a position to embody the forces opposing the authority of the tsar". It makes a link with the trial of Tsarevich Alexis, son of Peter the Great, and his death as a result of torture. This other conflict between a father and his son is the theme of Nikolai Ge's 1871 painting Peter the Great interrogates Tsarevich Alexis in Peterhof.

0492_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In the context of Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan, explore the 1909 version of the Analysis.

In 1909, on a commission from the industrialist and collector Stepan Ryabushinsky, Repin painted a second version of Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan, which he called Filicide (Сыноубийца). It is on display at Voronezh Museum of Fine Arts. The second version was painted 25 years later than the first. In this version, Repin added a female character in the background and unveiled more colours than in the original painting, taking it in a more "luxuriant" direction, while Tsar Ivan's face is collapsed in grief.

0492_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In the context of this artwork, explore the 1909 version of the Analysis.

In 1909, on a commission from the industrialist and collector Stepan Ryabushinsky, Repin painted a second version of Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan, which he called Filicide (Сыноубийца). It is on display at Voronezh Museum of Fine Arts. The second version was painted 25 years later than the first. In this version, Repin added a female character in the background and unveiled more colours than in the original painting, taking it in a more "luxuriant" direction, while Tsar Ivan's face is collapsed in grief.

0493_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Focus on Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan and explain the Reception and initial censorship.

In 1885, Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan was shown for the first time to Repin's painter friends, among whom were Ivan Kramskoi, Ivan Shishkin, Nikolai Yaroshenko and Pavel Brullov. According to Repin, his hosts were stunned and silent for a long time, waiting to see what Kramskoi would say:I was seized with a feeling of complete appreciation for Repin. There it is, the thing, what a level of talent ... And how it's painted, my God, how it's painted! ... And what is this murder, carried out by a wild beast and a psychopath? ... A father hits his son with his sceptre in the temple? One moment ... He utters a cry of terror ... He grabs him, he sits him on the ground, he raises him ... He presses one of his hands on the wound in the temple (and blood gushes out of the cracks between the fingers) ... and as he bawls ... It's an animal, howling with fear ... the very spot that the son has marked with his temple ... Really, this scene is drowning us in half-light and a kind of natural tragic. The very conservative Attorney General of the Holy Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev told Alexander III of his "repulsion" and perplexity about the painting, which did not please the Tsar and his entourage, and on 1 April 1885, viewings of the painter were forbidden. It was the first painting to be censored in the Russian Empire, and Pavel Tretyakov, who bought it, was told "not to expose it, and more generally not to allow it to be brought to the attention of the public by any other means". The ban was lifted on 11 July 1885 after the intervention of the painter Alexey Bogolyubov.

0493_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Focus on this artwork and explain the Reception and initial censorship.

In 1885, Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan was shown for the first time to Repin's painter friends, among whom were Ivan Kramskoi, Ivan Shishkin, Nikolai Yaroshenko and Pavel Brullov. According to Repin, his hosts were stunned and silent for a long time, waiting to see what Kramskoi would say:I was seized with a feeling of complete appreciation for Repin. There it is, the thing, what a level of talent ... And how it's painted, my God, how it's painted! ... And what is this murder, carried out by a wild beast and a psychopath? ... A father hits his son with his sceptre in the temple? One moment ... He utters a cry of terror ... He grabs him, he sits him on the ground, he raises him ... He presses one of his hands on the wound in the temple (and blood gushes out of the cracks between the fingers) ... and as he bawls ... It's an animal, howling with fear ... the very spot that the son has marked with his temple ... Really, this scene is drowning us in half-light and a kind of natural tragic. The very conservative Attorney General of the Holy Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev told Alexander III of his "repulsion" and perplexity about the painting, which did not please the Tsar and his entourage, and on 1 April 1885, viewings of the painter were forbidden. It was the first painting to be censored in the Russian Empire, and Pavel Tretyakov, who bought it, was told "not to expose it, and more generally not to allow it to be brought to the attention of the public by any other means". The ban was lifted on 11 July 1885 after the intervention of the painter Alexey Bogolyubov.

0494_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Explore the Vandalism and controversies of this artwork, Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan.

On 16 January 1913, Ivan the Terrible and his Son Ivan on 16 November 1581 was slashed three times with a knife by a 29-year-old iconoclast, son of the furniture maker Abram Balachov. The curator of the Tretyakov gallery Georgy Khruslov, learning of the vandalism of the canvas, threw himself under a train. The painting was restored almost to its original state with the help of Repin.Some Russian nationalists continue to protest the painting's exhibition because they believe it was painted as part of a foreign smear campaign and that the scene depicted is inaccurate.In October 2013, a group of Orthodox historians and activists, led by Vassili Boiko-Veliki, an apologist and supporter of the canonization of Tsar Ivan, addressed the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky to ask him to remove the canvas from the Tretyakov Gallery on the grounds it offends the patriotic feelings of Russians. The director of the Tretyakov Gallery Irina Lebedeva formally opposed the request.In May 2018, the canvas was again attacked in the Tretyakov Gallery by a drunken visitor who broke its protective glass with a metal bar. The painting suffered serious damage; it was pierced in three places in the central part of the work, which depicts the figure of the tsarevich. The gallery said the frame was also badly damaged but that "by a happy coincidence" the most precious elements of the painting, the depiction of the figures' faces and hands, were not damaged. According to some Russian media, the vandal said he had attacked the painting because he thought the depiction was inaccurate. The attacker was imprisoned for two-and-a-half years.

0494_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Explore the Vandalism and controversies of this artwork.

On 16 January 1913, Ivan the Terrible and his Son Ivan on 16 November 1581 was slashed three times with a knife by a 29-year-old iconoclast, son of the furniture maker Abram Balachov. The curator of the Tretyakov gallery Georgy Khruslov, learning of the vandalism of the canvas, threw himself under a train. The painting was restored almost to its original state with the help of Repin.Some Russian nationalists continue to protest the painting's exhibition because they believe it was painted as part of a foreign smear campaign and that the scene depicted is inaccurate.In October 2013, a group of Orthodox historians and activists, led by Vassili Boiko-Veliki, an apologist and supporter of the canonization of Tsar Ivan, addressed the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky to ask him to remove the canvas from the Tretyakov Gallery on the grounds it offends the patriotic feelings of Russians. The director of the Tretyakov Gallery Irina Lebedeva formally opposed the request.In May 2018, the canvas was again attacked in the Tretyakov Gallery by a drunken visitor who broke its protective glass with a metal bar. The painting suffered serious damage; it was pierced in three places in the central part of the work, which depicts the figure of the tsarevich. The gallery said the frame was also badly damaged but that "by a happy coincidence" the most precious elements of the painting, the depiction of the figures' faces and hands, were not damaged. According to some Russian media, the vandal said he had attacked the painting because he thought the depiction was inaccurate. The attacker was imprisoned for two-and-a-half years.

0495_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Focus on Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan and discuss the Legacy.

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan remains one of Russia's most famous paintings, and the most psychologically intense of Repin's works. The work appears briefly in the third episode of the 2019 HBO miniseries Chernobyl.

0495_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Focus on this artwork and discuss the Legacy.

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan remains one of Russia's most famous paintings, and the most psychologically intense of Repin's works. The work appears briefly in the third episode of the 2019 HBO miniseries Chernobyl.

0496_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

How does Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan elucidate its Subject of the painting and historiography?

The Tsarevich Ivan's death had grave consequences for Russia, since it left no competent heir to the throne. After the Tsar's death in 1584, his unprepared son Feodor I succeeded him with Boris Godunov as de facto ruler. After Feodor's death, Russia entered a period of political uncertainty, famine and war known as the Time of Troubles.The details of the Tsarevich's death are unknown and controversial. The Tsarevich died in 1581 in the Alexandrov Kremlin, the residence of Tsar Ivan the Terrible from 1564 to 1581, and the centre of his oprichnina and de facto capital of the Russia.

0496_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

How does this artwork elucidate its Subject of the painting and historiography?

The Tsarevich Ivan's death had grave consequences for Russia, since it left no competent heir to the throne. After the Tsar's death in 1584, his unprepared son Feodor I succeeded him with Boris Godunov as de facto ruler. After Feodor's death, Russia entered a period of political uncertainty, famine and war known as the Time of Troubles.The details of the Tsarevich's death are unknown and controversial. The Tsarevich died in 1581 in the Alexandrov Kremlin, the residence of Tsar Ivan the Terrible from 1564 to 1581, and the centre of his oprichnina and de facto capital of the Russia.

0497_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In the context of Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan, analyze the In contemporary Russian chronicles and sources of the Subject of the painting and historiography.

In a letter addressed to Nikita Zakharin and Andrey Shchelkalov in 1581, Ivan the Terrible wrote; "[he] cannot go to Moscow because of [his] son's illness" without identifying the illness. Several contemporary Russian chronicles mention the Tsarevich's death without providing any details. According to the Piskarevsk Chronicle, the death occurred at midnight. None of these chronicles suggest the death of Ivan Ivanovich was violent. Other sources provide a more-detailed version of the death, saying the Tsarevich was mortally wounded by his father during an argument. One of these sources, the Mazurin chronicle, reports the following: In the summer of 1581, it was from the Sovereign Emperor and Grand Prince Ivan Vassilievitch, that his son, his greatness Prince Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich, shining with wise meaning and grace and separated from the branch of life by a blade, received evil, and from this evil, he died. The sources indicate the event took place on 14 November 1581 and that the Tsarevich would have died on 19 November, but the dates reported vary. The diary of the dyak (clerk) Ivan Timofeev says; "some say (of the Tsarevich) that his life was extinguished because of blows by the hands of his father, after trying to prevent him from committing an ugly act".

0497_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In the context of this artwork, analyze the In contemporary Russian chronicles and sources of the Subject of the painting and historiography.

In a letter addressed to Nikita Zakharin and Andrey Shchelkalov in 1581, Ivan the Terrible wrote; "[he] cannot go to Moscow because of [his] son's illness" without identifying the illness. Several contemporary Russian chronicles mention the Tsarevich's death without providing any details. According to the Piskarevsk Chronicle, the death occurred at midnight. None of these chronicles suggest the death of Ivan Ivanovich was violent. Other sources provide a more-detailed version of the death, saying the Tsarevich was mortally wounded by his father during an argument. One of these sources, the Mazurin chronicle, reports the following: In the summer of 1581, it was from the Sovereign Emperor and Grand Prince Ivan Vassilievitch, that his son, his greatness Prince Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich, shining with wise meaning and grace and separated from the branch of life by a blade, received evil, and from this evil, he died. The sources indicate the event took place on 14 November 1581 and that the Tsarevich would have died on 19 November, but the dates reported vary. The diary of the dyak (clerk) Ivan Timofeev says; "some say (of the Tsarevich) that his life was extinguished because of blows by the hands of his father, after trying to prevent him from committing an ugly act".

0498_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Describe the characteristics of the Foreign testimonies in Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan's Subject of the painting and historiography.

Contemporaneous foreign sources are more eloquent; Jacques Margeret, a French mercenary captain in service in Russia, wrote; "there is a rumour that he (the tsar) killed the eldest (son) with his own hand, which wasn't the case, because, although he struck him with the end of the rod and he was wounded by a blow, he did not die from this, but some time later, on a pilgrimage journey".Another version is reported by the papal diplomat Antonio Possevino. According to him, in November 1581 in the Alexandrov Kremlin, Ivan the Terrible found his daughter-in-law Helen lying on a bench in undergarments. The third wife of Ivan's son was laying on a bench, dressed in underwear. She was pregnant and didn't expect anyone to visit her. However, the Grand Prince of Moscow (Ivan the Terrible) paid her an unexpected visit. She immediately stood up to meet him, but it was already impossible to calm him down. He hit her in the face, and then beat her with his staff, punching her so hard that she lost her child the next night. His son Ivan then ran to his father and asked him not to beat his wife, but this only made his father angrier. The Prince started hitting his son with his staff, which resulted in a very serious wound in the head. Before that, in anger at his father, the son hotly reproached him in the following words:"You imprisoned my first wife in a convent for no reason, you did the same with my second wife, and now you are beating up the third in order to kill the child she carries in her womb." Having injured his son, the father immediately indulged in deep grief and immediately summoned doctors and Andrei Shchelkalov and Nikita Romanovich from Moscow to have everything at hand. On the fifth day, the son died and was transferred to Moscow.

0498_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

Describe the characteristics of the Foreign testimonies in this artwork's Subject of the painting and historiography.

Contemporaneous foreign sources are more eloquent; Jacques Margeret, a French mercenary captain in service in Russia, wrote; "there is a rumour that he (the tsar) killed the eldest (son) with his own hand, which wasn't the case, because, although he struck him with the end of the rod and he was wounded by a blow, he did not die from this, but some time later, on a pilgrimage journey".Another version is reported by the papal diplomat Antonio Possevino. According to him, in November 1581 in the Alexandrov Kremlin, Ivan the Terrible found his daughter-in-law Helen lying on a bench in undergarments. The third wife of Ivan's son was laying on a bench, dressed in underwear. She was pregnant and didn't expect anyone to visit her. However, the Grand Prince of Moscow (Ivan the Terrible) paid her an unexpected visit. She immediately stood up to meet him, but it was already impossible to calm him down. He hit her in the face, and then beat her with his staff, punching her so hard that she lost her child the next night. His son Ivan then ran to his father and asked him not to beat his wife, but this only made his father angrier. The Prince started hitting his son with his staff, which resulted in a very serious wound in the head. Before that, in anger at his father, the son hotly reproached him in the following words:"You imprisoned my first wife in a convent for no reason, you did the same with my second wife, and now you are beating up the third in order to kill the child she carries in her womb." Having injured his son, the father immediately indulged in deep grief and immediately summoned doctors and Andrei Shchelkalov and Nikita Romanovich from Moscow to have everything at hand. On the fifth day, the son died and was transferred to Moscow.

0499_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In the context of Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan, explore the Stories by Russian historians of the Subject of the painting and historiography.

18th-century Russian historian Nikolay Karamzin also believed the Tsarevich died because of his father but under different circumstances. He (Ivan the Terrible) put his hand on him (Tsarevich). Boris Godunov wanted to come to his aid but the Tsar inflicted several wounds to him with the point of his sceptre and struck the Tsarevich with it on the head. He then fell to the ground, spilling his blood. The father's fury disappeared. Paling with fear, trembling, in complete shock, he exclaimed "I killed my son" and he threw himself down to kiss him; pouring out the blood flowing from a deep wound, he wept, sobbed, called for the doctors. He implored the mercy of God and the forgiveness of his son. Repin relied on Karamzin's story to paint Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on 16 November 1581, one of the most-striking paintings of his chrestomathy. Russian imperial historian Mikhail Shcherbatov, who studied the different versions of Ivan Ivanovich's death, considers Possevino's version the most plausible and the Russian imperial historian Vasily Klyuchevsky called it the only reliable version.

0499_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In the context of this artwork, explore the Stories by Russian historians of the Subject of the painting and historiography.

18th-century Russian historian Nikolay Karamzin also believed the Tsarevich died because of his father but under different circumstances. He (Ivan the Terrible) put his hand on him (Tsarevich). Boris Godunov wanted to come to his aid but the Tsar inflicted several wounds to him with the point of his sceptre and struck the Tsarevich with it on the head. He then fell to the ground, spilling his blood. The father's fury disappeared. Paling with fear, trembling, in complete shock, he exclaimed "I killed my son" and he threw himself down to kiss him; pouring out the blood flowing from a deep wound, he wept, sobbed, called for the doctors. He implored the mercy of God and the forgiveness of his son. Repin relied on Karamzin's story to paint Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on 16 November 1581, one of the most-striking paintings of his chrestomathy. Russian imperial historian Mikhail Shcherbatov, who studied the different versions of Ivan Ivanovich's death, considers Possevino's version the most plausible and the Russian imperial historian Vasily Klyuchevsky called it the only reliable version.

0500_T

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan, how is the General and cited references of the Notes and references elucidated?

Yarmolinsky, Avrahm (2016). Road to Revolution: A Century of Russian Radicalism. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-63854-6. Kel'ner, Viktor Efimovich (2015). 1 marta 1881 goda: Kazn imperatora Aleksandra II (1 марта 1881 года: Казнь императора Александра II). Lenizdat. ISBN 978-5-289-01024-7.

0500_NT

Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan

In this artwork, how is the General and cited references of the Notes and references elucidated?

Yarmolinsky, Avrahm (2016). Road to Revolution: A Century of Russian Radicalism. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-63854-6. Kel'ner, Viktor Efimovich (2015). 1 marta 1881 goda: Kazn imperatora Aleksandra II (1 марта 1881 года: Казнь императора Александра II). Lenizdat. ISBN 978-5-289-01024-7.