Humans have an equal capacity to create as they do to destroy, to love as to hate, and to find meaning in sharing their point of view of beauty. Diego Velazquez, one of the most influential artists of all times, displays race, gender, sexuality and violence all at once and makes the viewer see art with a different eye. Being a realist and impressionist artist and grasping full control of portraits. The movement prefers an observation of physical appearance rather than imagination or idealization. We live in a world replete with inequality, social injustice, and conflict why not break free and bring something different to the table. Beauty is the agency that causes visual pleasure in the beholders, and any theory of images that is not grounded in the pleasure of the beholder begs the question of their effectiveness and unrelated matter.
For many Velazquez work was inspiriting and looked upon from example Dali, Picasso whom recreated his work and for other his works was seen as pointless since it carried a different flow and sense of technique. Modern, bold and massive were words that came to my head as I got closer to the painting. The unity, volume and balance made it look rich and controlling. Revealing the artist hand, a mark that shows the viewer deep expectation of the intuitive process. Beauty is in fact a sort of identification with some moment in your life. You see the painting and somehow you identify that painting with a very emotional time in your life, and so you associate the power of emotion with the painting, creating the 'illusion' of beauty. Two of his paintings that stood out to me were “Juan de Pareja”, 1649 and “The Supper at Emmaus”, 1622–23. Being emblematic and divine, making the work represent a higher levels of being. It was like I was in the act of the painting, pecking in and watching though from the corner of my eyes. It was very inviting and it delivered pureness and devotion. In other words it was more than attraction to these pieces, it was a connection.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete'Devil found in detail of Giotto fresco in Italy's Assisi'
ReplyDeleteBy Philip Pullella | Reuters – Sat, Nov 5, 2011
ROME (Reuters) - Art restorers have discovered the figure of a devil hidden in the clouds of one of the most famous frescos by Giotto in the Basilica of St Francis in Assisi, church officials said on Saturday.
The devil was hidden in the details of clouds at the top of fresco number 20 in the cycle of the scenes in the life and death of St Francis painted by Giotto in the 13th century.
The discovery was made by Italian art historian Chiara Frugone. It shows a profile of a figure with a hooked nose, a sly smile, and dark horns hidden among the clouds in the panel of the scene depicting the death of St Francis.
The figure is difficult to see from the floor of the basilica but emerges clearly in close-up photography.
Sergio Fusetti, the chief restorer of the basilica, said Giotto probably never wanted the image of the devil to be a main part of the fresco and may have painted it in among the clouds "to have a bit of fun."
The master may have painted it to spite someone he knew by portraying him as a devil in the painting, Fusetti said on the convent's website.
The artwork in the basilica in the convent where St Francis is buried was last restored after it was severely damaged by an earthquake in 1997.
(Reporting By Philip Pullella; Editing by Sophie Hares)
http://news.yahoo.com/devil-found-detail-giotto-fresco-italys-assisi-114509111.html;_ylt=Aljp1TMKEDUbFhIUH866LVjzUc0F;_ylu=X3oDMTQ1dGxnc3NiBG1pdANQaG90byBTaW5nbGUgTWV0YWRhdGEgUmVsYXRlZARwa2cDODk1ZmQ5YTctYjA0MC0zODdkLWIxNTMtNmUxNmE0ZGFiYjRhBHBvcwMxBHNlYwNpbWdpbmZvBHZlcgNlMzdiZjE4MC0wN2EzLTExZTEtYWZmZi1hYjRjOWNkYWU3OTE-;_ylg=X3oDMTJtZjhqYXI2BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDYmY5MzE0NWItYjZlMy0zYmJhLWI0MDgtNzMxZWFjZDk5Y2UxBHBzdGNhdAMxcGhvdG8EcHQDMXBob3Rv;_ylv=3
http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/8f2877bb1e5be719fd0e6a706700cd3a.jpg
http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/0ca404dc1e5ce719fd0e6a70670056da.jpg
When I first saw Velazquez's 'Juan de Pareja' years ago at the Metropolitan Museum, it struck me the painting was so exact in its technical aspect, that it didn't idealize the subject but chose truth, so much so that I knew the subject was multiracial who was at least part African and not someone who was of solely European descent.
ReplyDeleteWhen I recently went to the Met Museum, I revisited this painting. The description next to the painting read:
"Velázquez (Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez) (Spanish, Seville 1599–1660 Madrid)
Juan de Pareja (born about 1610, died 1670)
Oil on canvas
This extraordinary portrait shows Velázquez's slave of Moorish descent who served as an assistant in his workshop. Painted in Rome, it was displayed publicly beneath the portico of the Pantheon in March 1650. Velázquez clearly intended to impress his Italian colleagues with his unique artistry. Indeed, we are told that the picture "gained such universal applause that in the opinion of all the painters of the different nations everything else seemed like painting but this alone like truth." Velázquez manages to convey not only the physical presence of the sitter but his proud character: he became a painter in his own right and was freed by Velázquez in 1654 (the act of liberation was signed in 1650—nine months after the picture was displayed, but it required Pareja to remain another four years with his master).
The picture was acquired in Italy by Sir William Hamilton in 1776; between 1814 and 1970 it belonged to the earls of Radnor and was purchased by the Museum at auction in 1970 for a record-setting price."
Velazquez's 'Juan de Pareja' with its honest approach is a stark contrast to the historic oil painting of Pocahontas that hangs at the Smithsonian. This painting portrays Pocahontas as a fair-featured European instead of portraying her as a Native American. The painter clearly wasn't interested in making an accurate depiction true to her Native American appearance, but perhaps thought was "idealizing" Pocahontas by stripping away her Native American identity and elevating her by making her look European. The engraving by Simon van de Passes which the oil painting if based off from, also didn't necessarily do any justice to depicting Pocahontas accurately.
Perhaps if a young Velazquez was commissioned to do a portrait of Pocahontas when she was alive (Velazquez was born a few years after Pocahontas), the world now would have an accurate portrait of her. Unfortunately, this did not happen and we have no idea how Pocahontas actually looked.
http://pocahontas.morenus.org/poca_pic.html