Which Renaissance artists come to mind, Riette?

Sure. And this was the age of some of the REALLY famous painters. Again, with examples which I shall in time post for us to discuss: Masaccio (Adam and Eve 1427) Fra Angelico (Beheading of St. Cosmas and St. Damian 1438-1440) Piero Della Francesca (Resurrection of Christ 1450) Sandro Botticelli (Primavera 1482) Leonardo da Vinci (Virgin of the rocks 1508) Michelangelo (Ignudo from the Sistine Chapel 1503-1512) Raphael (Bindo Altoviti 1515) Titian (Venus and Adonis 1560) Correggio (Venus, Satyr and Cupid 1514-1530) Tintoretto (Conversion of St. Paul 1545) El Greco (Madonna and child with St. Martina and St. Agnes 1597-1599)

Gruezi, Riette and everybody! I like Cellini's "Perseo": (well, hope it works - wasn't very good in posting pics recently)

Is that Perseo's sword, or is he just glad to see me? :-)

ha-ha!!! Stunning sculpture, Renate! But I do find most of his sculptures a little 'dry' and lacking the feeling - it must be because he was also a goldsmith; it must have been very difficult to transfer such minute, precise work to a very large scale. But the craftsmanship is still magnificent.

Don't remember any of his other work, but I guess I know what you mean. Though, as Autumn points out, you cannot say this one lacks display of feeling :-). I refer to his triumphant posture, in case you wonder.

You are right: the posture is pretty triumphant. For me it just lacks that certain ... oh, I don't know how to call it. Like the sort of statue that belongs on the roof of a Swiss bank - triumphant enough, but not the sort of thing that'll make me look twice if I saw it in a museum. To me a truly good sculpture is one in which the posture, the expression on the face, the hands, each have their own tale to tell. I don't want to be able to tell straight away: okay, this guy is holding a cup, which he i going to drink from. So what. I want to see him WANT the wine, I want his tongue to play across his lips in anticipation of the drinking of the wine, I want to be able to imagine his hand tighten around the cup as he brings it to his mouth, I want to s ee his eyes close as he is about to take the first sip. Do you know what I mean? That sort of human feeling complimenting the brilliant craftsmanship.

Damn! Let's try again. . .

OH, bugger.

You just add the quotes and you'll have it. After img sorce put quotes before the http and before the closing angle bracket. You're a hair bredth away from getting it. Go, Riette!

I would like to see the pic, Riette, now I am really curious. Post the address, if not the link. But, I think I know what you mean. You seem to prefer the expressive variety of art. :-)

Yes, that's it, I think. But that doesn't make the more 'precise' works of art any less good - I have great respect for all of the great artists of our past. I could certainly never even dream of posessing the talent and precision and skill those men possessed.

The Virgin and Child by Masaccio 1426 135x75cm

(I thinks I finally got up alls that you sent me, Mistress...)

Thank you so much, my sweet slave. Okay so this is one of Masaccio's early works, painted for a church in Pisa. I chose this one, because it is in some ways such an omen of art to come. Madonna is a block of dignity, sitting there on her throne, (worrying about Josef's recent hairloss?) while the Child is completely stripped of Byzantine kingliness. He is a real baby. He is ugly and fat, He sucks his fingers, and stares into space. And then there is the way He is touched by the Madonna. Look at the tiny little hand lying in her's - i is really moving. There is beautifully combined strength and vulnerability in this painting. It was a first move towards real expression and feeling in art.

I like the way Jesus has lost that miniature adult look. That always seemed so creepy.

I know - I hate that about early Christian Art; some of those pictures seem almost evil to me.

Okay, here's our next picture: Sandro Botticelli 'Primavera' 1482 315cm x 205cm Unfortunately the photo does not do the real painting any justice - probably because it's such a large painting. The real colours are just stunning - lots of reds and light blues. Botticelli's paintings really stand out for me, because of their beautiful contours, the precise draftsmanship, and a sophisticated understanding of perpective, anatomy - though these elements never overshadow the sheer poetry of his vision. I can't quite make out what the actual subject of 'Primavera' is - unlike 'Primavera and the birth of Venus', also by him. (I'll try and post it after this one for you to see.) 'Primavera' seems to be an allegory on the harmony of nature and contains many mythical figures: There is Venus (who symbolizes the link between nature and civilization), and Mercury. At the right of the painting, the figure of Zephyr, the west wind of spring, is seen chasing Chloris, who is then transformed into Flora, the goddess of flowers. A blindfolded Cupid shoots his arrows at the Three Graces, who were the handmaidens of Venus. They represent the three phases of love: beauty, desire and fulfillment. Berenson once said of Botticelli: 'He appears almost as if haunted by the idea of communicating the unembodied values of touch and movement." Beautiful, isn't it?

they all look pregnant....which is lovely in itself.

I was thinking the same thing, Wolf! I wondered if they were representing fertility, in accordance with the spring theme, or if it was just his style.

I think it could well be that they represent fertility - in some of his paintings the women don't look pregnant. I'll post 'Birth of Venus' if I can find it next.

As I am sitting here, staring at my own photo of this incredible painting, another thing strikes me about it. Everything about it is life-enhancing - yet it offers no safeguards against suffering or accident: did you notice that Cupid is blindfolded as he flies? It gives the poetry of this painting an underlying wistfulness, that sort of nostalgia we get from time to time for something that we cannot possess, but something with which we feel deeply in tune. And now, look at this: Sandro Botticelli 'Birth of Venus' 1485-86 175cm x 280cm Look at how this longing is even more visible in the face of Venus as she is standing there, naked, fragile, sweet. And Flora holds out a garment to her, as if to say: We cannot look upon love unclothed; we are too weak, too wretched to bear the beauty.

i see Venus as perfectly comfortable in her skin and the covering of her womanly features is for our benefit. Flora is almost wanting just to cover her up. but look how beautiful she is just the way she is. she has no insecurities. so what's up with the two beings on the left?

The two beings on the right are Zephyr, the west wind of spring, who has caught Chloris (from the previous picture), and Flora on the right, is what he turns Chloris into - the goddess of flowers.

Stunning!

And in a similar spirit... Giovanni Bellini 'The Feast of the Gods' 1514 170cm x 188cm

Another big name from the Italian Renaissance is of course, Michelangelo. So, let's see what he did. Michelangelo 1500's I love Michelangelo's paintings of the creation, and ultimately, the Last Judgement for sheer skill and force, but they show God to be terrible I find. He shows God's majesty only, and not His fatherhood. Apparently he saw the world as irredeemable corrupt, and boy, does he show it or what??

Pretty daunting--he resembles one of the mythological gods.

Dieric Bouts (1420-1475) 'Mater Dolorosa' 1460 Oil on Panel The Dutch Born painter, Dieric Bouts (c.1415-75) was appointed city painter in Louvain, Flanders in 1468. Although he is known as a Gothic painter, I think the great emotion in this one shows that he went along with the Renaissance. At first this painting seemed dreadfully kitschy to me, and then I thought: I am judging this picture by modern standards. So I looked again, and it became more remarkable for all the emotion depicted here. After the sternness of the Medieval and Gothic periods, this must have been an almost shocking display of human qualities. What finally convinced me, was Mater Dolorosa's hands. These are working hands. They are dirty, because they are there to work and give and sacrifice, not to receive and be admired. Despite being a religious woman, she does not sit above the people around her. She sees their suffering, she feels it too.

Good point, Riette.

�graciously accepting applause!�

Albrecht Altdorfer (c.1480-1538) 'View of the Danube Valley near Regensburg' 1520-25

And here is a most stunning example: Fra Angelico (c. 1395-1455) 'Noli Me Tangere' 1440-41 Fresco Convent of San Marco, Florence No wonder that in popular tradition this painter has been seen as, in Ruskin's words, 'not an artist properly so-called, but an inspired saint'. The Frescos that he painted in San Marco are at once the expression of and a guide to the spiritual life and disciplined devotion of his convent community. The frescos were intended as aids to devotion; with their immaculate colouring, their economy in drawing and composition, and their freedom from the accidents of time and place, they attain a sense of blissful serenity. Oh, and if any of you are interested in seeing it some time, the Convent of San Marco is now an Angelico museum.

this is beautiful!

Isn't it just? Looks so fresh too, like it was done yesterday.

Absolutely, it's practically glowing.

Hendrick Avercamp (1585-1634) 'Winter Landscape' This is the only work I have seen so far by this artist - I think. Apparently he was not only famous for his winter landscapes, but for the fact that he was deaf and dumb - they called him 'de Stomme van Kampen' (the mute of Kampen). Apparently there is an outstanding collection of his work at Windsor Castle.

i think he capitalized on the senses he did have -- sight! look at the bright sun shining down, it's blinding even here on the painting..

I know. I think it's beautiful!

Let's go back to Fra Angelico, whose painting I posted two pictures ago. Fra Angelico 'Presentation in the Temple' 1440-41 158cm x 136cm Convent of San Marco, Florence Again, a very simple painting, but so beautifully done, one can't help but like it. And for those of you who live in America, I've found out where you can an go admire some of his other works. 'The Madonna of Humility': National Gallery of Art, Washington 'St James Freeing Hermogenes': Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas 'Virgin and Child': Cincinnati Art Museum

The last time I was in the National Gallery, I got in trouble for pointing too closely at a painting. My girlfriend and I giggled through the whole East Wing. This one seems unnatural and fakey-fake to me. Maybe I'm just jaded these days.

Yes, I wonder why they're so stuck-up at galleries. I mean, do they honestly think one is going to DO something to the paintings???

Well, you never know when a president is going to come by...

HA-HA!!!!

that happened to me on an art trip in high school (no, not the president, gross!) but i got a bit too close and the guard had to come over and make sure i wasn't gonna fornicate the oil or something. it was really weird because i read the "how to behave in an art gallery" rules and still wanted to touch the stuff.

You mean you didn't know about the little magnets they put into paintings? Why do you think they attract to much money?

I saw most of these paintings in person. Nothing can describe them.

I know what you mean, Kristen. I visit art museums and cathedrals wherever I go in Europe - it really does give one a kick to see famous works for real, rather than in books. This weekend I saw some Giacometti stained glass windows in a church - they were stunning, probably among the most beautiful windows I've ever seen. I also visited Stein am Rhein on Sunday, which is a small village on the river. It's so so beautiful, and all the buildings are COVERED in excellent paintings of village life.

the city is trying to beautify some of the rundown places by painting various scenes on them. the thing i can't figure out is if they're doing it so it feels safe....

Sounds a little dubious.... In Stein am Rhein at least you know it's for real, since there live a mere thousand people there! Maybe they did it to make the place seem more dangerous!!!

Depends on what it's a picture of!

Bread bakers, pig farmers - you know, the usual dangers.

only when you mess with their daughters...

pictures of butterflies and various bayou decidious wildlife....

like wolves?

i think i'm the only wolf here, actually!

eh? what was that, riette?? *grin*

mind strike! For a moment I thought your species had become totally extinct here at the spring. Luckily I was wrong.

Piero della Francesca 'The Baptism' 1442 I find the works by this artist incredibly serene and beautiful.

Oops, that one didn't work - let's try another, and I'll try the previous one again later. Montefeltro Altarpiece (Milan) Piero della Francesca 1465 The most amazing thing about this painting is not only the brilliant perspective, but the dummy around the Child's neck!

MAN!

this picture is hilarious! i'm sorry but i can't help it. why do all the people's heads look like they were superimposed (like in enquire magazine)? and what's the matter with this baby? he can't be comfortable at all in a position like that. and what is that on his chest? a gaping chest wound or a cross hanging from a chain? and then there's the thing dangling from the scallop shell. it looks like a lamp or a big fat egg. now the clothing is very well done. looks like you can actually feel the folds o his tunic. i don't mean to be ugly about the baby Jesus, but this picture is kind of weird looking to me.

It's exquisitely painted, but yeah! I'm kind of puzzled by the dummy myself! There are much better pictures by this artist. His speciality was dimensions and perspective; he was one of the first artists who used architectual calculations to paint his pictures, and got it perfect. In that sense he is pretty brilliant. But that dummy!

I was looking at the architecture, and thinking what a shame it is that they do not build buildings that way anymore.

indeed! i must say that i enjoyed the architecture and the detailed way it was reproduced.

I love walking through old courthouses, cathedrals, and other public buildings, to look at the detailing.

are you one of those too? where you visit a building and wind up walking around with your head at a 90 deg angle looking at the nooks and crannies on the ceiling? haha!!

And wind up with a stiff neck that takes hours to get over? Yes!

my problem is the whiplash affect from snapping that head back to level and up again to make sure i'm not running into anyone! where're you from?

Originally from the mid-west, I moved here from Nebraska, a little over two years ago.

moved here....where is here? i lived in kansas for 8 years. have been to nebraska--namely pioneer village.

wait, i'm not still in kansas. am in louisiana.

I live in Austin, Tx, for the present. I am taking a long look at Corpus, however.

yeah, that would be a long look from way over in austin! *tongue in cheek* whaddaya do?

What part of Louisiana? Arcadiana, by any chance?

no. shreveport/bossier.

I am a regional truck driver. Used to work long-haul but got tired of it, and you?

you're starting to sound a lot like someone i know.

ha-ha! Yeah, me too! Are you into art, Patrick?

Yes, I am. I enjoy most forms of art.

Contributed by John Burnett Hawaii TV news anchor Joe Moore told a terrific story about the painting of Leonardo DaVinci's "The Last Supper." DaVinci used live models as Jesus and the 12 disciples. The first person he painted was Jesus. After several months of searching for a "face without sin," he settled on a 19-year-old youth as the face of the Messiah. Six years later, all the disciples but Judas Iscariot were painted. He also spent a considerable amount of time before settling on a 25-year-old convict to be the face of the disciple who had betrayed Christ. It wasn't until the painting was completed that DaVinci was told that the person who had posed as Judas was the same person who had also posed as Jesus.

incredible!

It is a real chicken-skin story. Who says corruption does not tell on the face of the perpetrator?! Not all of us have a Dorian Gray portrait in the attic.