Saturday, March 30, 2013

Spring mysteries: Botticelli’s Primavera

Sandro Botticelli | Primavera; Allegory of Spring | c. 1478 | Galleria degli Uffizi | Image and original data provided by SCALA, Florence/ART RESOURCE, N.Y.; artres.com;  scalarchives.com | (c) 2006, SCALA, Florence/ART RESOURCE, N.Y.
Sandro Botticelli | Primavera; Allegory of Spring | c. 1478 | Galleria degli Uffizi | Image and original data provided by SCALA, Florence/ART RESOURCE, N.Y.; artres.com; scalarchives.com | (c) 2006, SCALA, Florence/ART RESOURCE, N.Y.
Spring is here! The return of sunshine inspired us to look at Botticelli’s Primavera, a masterpiece of the early Renaissance and arguably the most popular artistic representation of the season, even if – as we shall see – its interpretation remains inconclusive.
Botticelli painted Primavera sometime between 1477 and 1482, probably for the marriage of Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco, cousin of the powerful Italian statesman (and important patron of the arts) Lorenzo Medici. The date is just one of the many facts surrounding the painting that remain unclear. For starters, its original title is unknown; it was first called La Primavera by the artist/art historian Giorgio Vasari, who only saw it some 70 years after it was painted. While it’s generally agreed that on one level Primavera depicts themes of love and marriage, sensuality and fertility, the work’s precise meaning continues to be debated (a search in JSTOR led us to more than 700 results, with nearly as many differing opinions). Here’s what we think we know:

Primavera depicts a group of figures in an orange grove (which may reflect the fact that the Medici family had adopted the orange tree as its family symbol). To the far left of the painting stands Mercury dissipating the clouds of winter with his staff for spring to come.


Next to Mercury stand the Three Graces, who represent the feminine virtues of Chastity, Beauty, and Love; the pearls on their heads symbolize purity. Next to them, in the center of the composition, is the Roman goddess Venus, who protects and cares for the institution of marriage. Above her is her son, cupid, blindfolded as he shoots his arrows of love towards the Three Graces. On the far right of the painting we see Zephyrus, the west wind, pursuing a nymph named Chloris. After he succeeds in reaching her, Chloris transforms into Flora, goddess of spring. The transformation is indicated by the flowers coming out of Chloris’s mouth. Flora scatters the flowers she gathered on her dress, symbolizing springtime and fertility.
Sandro Botticelli | Detail of: Primavera; Allegory of Spring | c. 1478 | Galleria degli Uffizi | Image and original data provided by SCALA, Florence/ART RESOURCE, N.Y.; artres.com;  scalarchives.com | (c) 2006, SCALA, Florence/ART RESOURCE, N.Y.
Sandro Botticelli | Detail of: Primavera; Allegory of Spring | c. 1478 | Galleria degli Uffizi | Image and original data provided by SCALA, Florence/ART RESOURCE, N.Y.; artres.com; scalarchives.com | (c) 2006, SCALA, Florence/ART RESOURCE, N.Y.
The key to interpreting the composition as a whole might lie with the sources of the painting, but we have no consensus as to what they were. Parts seem to come from Ovid, who wrote about Chloris and her transformation, Lucretius, who in his poem “De rerum natura” touched upon some of the imagery seen in the painting, or it may have been inspired by “Rusticus,” a poem celebrating country life by Poliziano, a close friend of the Medici family. Thankfully, our appreciation for the beauty of the painting transcends our difficulties in understanding it. Metropolitan Museum of Art curator Ian Alteveer’s recent statement about Jasper John’s White Flag could easily suit Botticelli’s Primavera: “As I warmed up to this work, I realized that a work can be inscrutable and you can still love it.”
These images come to us courtesy of the Scala Archives. We encourage you to look at the painting in the ARTstor Digital Library to zoom in for illuminating close-ups. (And don’t forget to click on the duplicates and details and related images icons to explore further.)

Sunday, March 24, 2013

FYI-suggest you checkout "Studio Matters" blog for more insight


Outside the Citadel, Social Practice Art Is Intended to Nurture

Regina Martinez for The Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts
A town-hall meeting on racial and economic issues at the Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts in St. Louis.
In Detroit a contemporary-art museum is completing a monument to an influential artist that will not feature his work but will instead provide food, haircuts, education programs and other social services to the general public.
Hassan Ali Noor/Creative Time Reports
Marisa Mazria Katz interviews a musician in Nairobi, Kenya, for Creative Time Reports, run by a New York nonprofit.
Trade School
Butter making class.
James Estrin/The New York Times
Living with immigrants in Queens.
Corine Vermuelen
A re-creation of the childhood home of the artist Mike Kelley that will be a social-services site at the Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit.
Peter Walsh
Portraits sketched round-robin at a school where classes were paid for through bartering.
In New York an art organization that commissions public installations has been dispatching a journalist to politically precarious places around the world where she enlists artists and activists — often one and the same — to write for a Web site that can read more like a policy journal than an art portal. And in St. Louis an art institution known primarily for its monumental Richard Serra sculpture is turning itself into a hub of social activism, recently organizing a town-hall meeting where 350 people crowded in to talk about de facto segregation, one of the city’s most intractable problems.
If none of these projects sound much like art — or the art you are used to seeing in museums — that is precisely the point. As the commercial art world in America rides a boom unlike any it has ever experienced, another kind of art world growing rapidly in its shadows is beginning to assert itself. And art institutions around the country are grappling with how to bring it within museum walls and make the case that it can be appreciated along with paintings, sculpture and other more tangible works.
Known primarily as social practice, its practitioners freely blur the lines among object making, performance, political activism, community organizing, environmentalism and investigative journalism, creating a deeply participatory art that often flourishes outside the gallery and museum system. And in so doing, they push an old question — “Why is it art?” — as close to the breaking point as contemporary art ever has.
Leading museums have largely ignored it. But many smaller art institutions see it as a new frontier for a movement whose roots stretch back to the 1960s but has picked up fervor through Occupy Wall Street and the rise of social activism among young artists.
“Say what you will, this stuff is happening, and you might want to put your head in the sand and say, ‘I wish it was 40 years ago and it was different and art was more straightforward,’ but it’s not,” said Nato Thompson, the chief curator of Creative Time, a New York nonprofit that is known mostly for temporary public art installations but has been delving deeply into the movement.
Works can be as wildly varied as a community development project in Houston that provides both artists’ studios and low-income housing, summer camps and workshops for teenagers run by an artist collective near Los Angeles or a program in San Francisco founded by artists and financed by the city that helps turn yards, vacant lots and rooftops into organic gardens.
Art of this kind has thrived for decades outside the United States, mostly in Europe and South America, but has recently caught fire with a new generation of American artists in what is partly a reaction to the art market’s distorting power, fueled by a concentration of international wealth. Many artists, however, say the motivation is much broader: to make a difference in the world that is more than aesthetic.
“The boundary lines about how art is being made are becoming much blurrier,” said Laura Raicovich, who was hired last year by Creative Time as its director of global initiatives and to run a Web site called Creative Time Reports.
The site’s recent pieces include a video by an Egyptian-Lebanese artist about Tahrir Square, the locus of the Egyptian uprising two years ago, and a short film about family debt in America made by a self-described “debt resistance” art collective with roots in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
“We’re not trying to do what journalism does,” Ms. Raicovich said. “But we think artists can supplement and complement it through a different lens. And what they’re doing is art.”
Social-practice programs are popping up in academia and seem to thrive in the interdisciplinary world of the campus. (The first dedicated master of fine arts program in the field was founded in 2005 at the California College of the Arts in San Francisco, and today there are more than half a dozen.) But for art institutions the problems are trickier: How can you present art that is rarely conceived with a museum or exhibition in mind, for example community projects, often run by collaboratives, that might go on for years, inviting participation more than traditional art appreciation?
At the Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts, a private institution founded by the collector and philanthropist Emily Rauh Pulitzer that opened in St. Louis in 2001, the staff for many years included two full-time social workers who helped former prison inmates and homeless veterans as part of the curatorial program. And in December the foundation, responding to a 2012 BBC report about racial and economic disparities in St. Louis, held a town-hall meeting on the issue. The goal was to open a dialogue with people who live near the institution, which sits near a stark north-south divide between mostly white and African-American neighborhoods.
“We hoped maybe 100 people would show up, and more than 350 did,” said Kristina Van Dyke, the foundation’s director, who collaborated with the Missouri History Museum in organizing the event. As the foundation approached its 10th anniversary, she said, “we wanted to start envisioning art more broadly, as a place where ideas can happen and action might be able to take place.”
“The question became: Could we effect social change through art, plain and simple?” she said, adding that the foundation is now exploring ways to orient its programming toward design projects that would help the poor, for example. “To me art is elastic. It can respond to many different demands made on it. At the same time I have to say that I don’t believe all institutions have to do these kinds of things, or should.”
Some in the art world feel that all institutions (and artists) should resist the urge completely. Maureen Mullarkey, a New York painter, wrote on her blog, Studio Matters, that such work only confirmed her belief “that art is increasingly not about art at all.” Instead, she argued, it is “fast becoming a variant of community organizing by soi-disant promoters of their own notions of the common good.”
But many institutions, especially those in cities and neighborhoods with pressing social problems, see the need to extend their reach.
The Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit, for example, is constructing a final work by the artist Mike Kelley, who committed suicide last year, that will function as a kind of perpetual social-practice experiment. Although Kelley was never identified with the movement, he specified before his death that the work, “Mobile Homestead” — a faithful re-creation of his childhood ranch-style home that will sit in a once-vacant lot behind the museum — should not be an art location in any traditional sense but a small social-services site, with possible additional roles as space for music and the museum’s education programs. Whether visitors will understand that the house is a work of art and a continuing performance is an open question. Smaller institutions like the Hammer Museum and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis and the Queens Museum of Art, which is acknowledged as a pioneer of social-practice programming, have also begun bringing the movement into the spotlight. (Tania Bruguera, a New York artist who is known for helping immigrants and has been supported by the Queens Museum and Creative Time, sometimes explains social-practice art with an anti-Modernist call to arms: “It’s time to restore Marcel Duchamp’s urinal to the bathroom.”)
Still, the political nature of the movement propels it into territory that is unfamiliar to many artists and art institutions. Last year, for example, a group of artists boycotted a summit meeting that has been held annually by Creative Time since 2009, saying they objected to the participation of a digital art center supported by the Israeli government. (Creative Time later made clear that the meeting received no funds from the organization or the Israeli government.)
Mr. Thompson of Creative Time said that many of the most dedicated social-practice artists see a huge divide between themselves and the commercial art world. “There are artists who don’t want to be the entertainment,” he said. “During a crisis of vast inequity they don’t want to be the sideshow, off to the side juggling.”
Caroline Woolard, a 29-year-old Brooklyn artist whose projects include collaborating on temporary “trade schools” where classes are paid for through bartering, said she became a social-practice artist not because she objected to the commercial or institutional art sectors but because she felt that the art world was too isolated.
“It was the realization that the types of people who went to cultural institutions — museums or galleries — were such a small section of any possible public for the kind of work I was interested in,” she said. She added, though, that she believed the movement would only broaden, and that museums and even the commercial art world would have to find a way to get involved.
“I do think that there will be ways for new kinds of collectors to emerge who will support these kinds of long-term projects as works of art,” said Ms. Woolard, who was recently asked by the Museum of Modern Art’s education department to take part in a social-practice program, “Artists as Houseguests: Artists Experiment at MoMA,” over the next few months.
Pablo Helguera, who is organizing the experiment as the director of adult and academic programs in MoMA’s education department, said that departments like his, as opposed to curatorial ones, are often the doors through which social-practice artists enter the museum world.
“There have always been artists working this way, but we started seeing more and more of them,” Mr. Helguera said. “My theory is that the shift began happening sometime after 9/11. I think it was the question ‘What is the meaning of making art in the world like it is today?’ ”
Mr. Helguera, who has written a book on the subject, “Education for Socially Engaged Art,” added that galleries and museums are only now beginning to scope out the movement’s contours. “The art world has these expectations,” he said. “It’s like you’re supposed to deliver your fall collection and your spring collection, and then what are you doing for the summer, for the art fairs and the biennials?”
“But this kind of work doesn’t operate according to that calendar,” he said. “It might mean a connection with some community or group of people for years, maybe some artist’s whole life. It’s hard to bring to the public. Sometimes it’s hard to define.”
Even those who live in the world of socially engaged art sometimes need help defining it. Justin Langlois, a Canadian artist, recently wrote a wry David-Letterman-style list of questions that artists can pose to themselves to determine whether they are indeed practicing social practice. Question No. 19 was “Can your work be critiqued by a painter?” Question No. 22: “If your project was a math equation, did the sum always end up as a critique of capitalism?” And the final question: “Were you asked to explain the reason you think your project is art?”

Friday, March 22, 2013


Art Review

The Renaissance Followed Him North

‘Albrecht Dürer: Master Drawings, Watercolors, and Prints,’ at the National Gallery

WASHINGTON — Albrecht Dürer had it all: the eye of a Raphael, the brains of a Leonardo, the looks of a cleaned-up Kurt Cobain. He produced the earliest known self-portrait drawing in European art when he was 13, and some of the first stand-alone landscapes. He brought the pliant warmth of Italian Classical painting to the shivery Gothic north, and transformed the woodcut medium from semi-folk art to fine art, and very fine art indeed.
Albertina, Vienna
Albrecht Dürer This exhibition at the National Gallery of Art includes “An Elderly Man of 93 Years,” from 1521.
Albertina, Vienna
In the 1503 watercolor “Virgin and Child With a Multitude of Animals and Plants,” Dürer seems to depict the world as a vast petting zoo.
Albertina, Vienna
Albertina, Vienna
Dürer drew his wife, Agnes, as St. Anne, the mother of the Virgin Mary.
Albertina, Vienna
Some of Dürer’s most famous works were studies for paintings, including “Praying Hands."
Albertina, Vienna
Dürer’s “Head of an Apostle Looking Up.”
Albertina, Vienna
A gouache painting known as “The Great Piece of Turf" (1503).
Albertina, Vienna
“The Sea Monster,” an engraving from around 1498.
Before he hit 30, he was the polymath star of what we now call the Northern European Renaissance. If he was personally vain — in his adult self-portraits he looks like Jesus — you can’t blame him.
Traditionally, the category of great artist implies great painter, and Dürer was that, though there’s reason to think that he was at his most inventive, involved and expansive in his works on paper. Evidence for that argument is here in Washington, in a startlingly generous exhibition called “Albrecht Dürer: Master Drawings, Watercolors, and Prints From the Albertina,“ opening at the National Gallery of Art on Sunday.
The show takes Dürer, who was born in Nuremberg, Germany, in 1471 and died there in 1528, from the beginning to the end of his career. Some of his most famous images — “Praying Hands,” the ineffable watercolor and gouache painting known as “The Great Piece of Turf” — are among the 100 or so works. Nearly all are from the Albertina Museum in Vienna, the premier repository of Dürer’s graphic art, though even there they are rarely displayed in such breadth.
Dürer was the son of a goldsmith, and after some basic schooling — as an adult he lamented that he had not had more — was expected to join the family trade. But he soon demonstrated that he was meant for larger things. Was the teenage self-portrait the tip-off? It certainly could have been. It is the first thing we see in the show, and it’s prodigious.
Done in 1484, it is an image, in silverpoint, of a longhaired youth with baby-fat cheeks and wide-open, mesmerized eyes gazing, almost certainly, at his reflection. If the young draftsman doesn’t get everything quite right, he still does a genius job. And a lot of the Dürer to come is here: the adamant realist, the pictorial dramatist (he points a finger in a bold, clear-the-path way) and the formal virtuoso, tackling an unforgiving medium (with silverpoint, if you make a mistake, you have to start from scratch) and mastering it.
For a while his life followed a standard bourgeois-artist route. He studied painting, with a sideline in printmaking, a guaranteed moneymaker. He hit the road for a year to check out the scene in other art towns, like Basel and Colmar. In 1494 he went home to marry Agnes Frey, the daughter of a local burgher.
The marriage was arranged by the families, and socially advantageous. Was it a love match? Hard to say. Dürer ended up writing snide things about Agnes to friends; there were no children. Still, a quick ink sketch he did of her just before the wedding feels affectionate. He depicted her as plain, a gawkily pensive girl with flyaway hair; under her figure he wrote the simple phrase, “Mein Agnes.”
Yet soon after his marriage, Dürer was traveling again, alone. This time he headed to Italy via the Alps, sketching plein-air landscapes as he went. Venice was his goal; he stayed about two years. When he returned again to Nuremberg, in 1496, he brought Italy, or the experience of Italian art, with him, and settled down to deal with it, make it his own.
He had already started copying Italian prints; now he began a process of adapting Classical motifs to the Gothic conventions. The results, with their twisted, strenuous grace, aren’t easy to love, but they are invariably interesting. Like postmodern hybrids, their power lies exactly in the fact that they seem unsettled, disruptive, on edge.
In an engraving called “The Sea Monster,” from around 1498, a nude woman, looking distressed, reclines on the back of a Triton who appears to be carrying her away. The story’s not clear; Dürer may have cooked it up just to do a nude. In any case, his attention seems drawn equally, if not more, by the background, a tree-garnished northern landscape of mountains and fortress-towns, realistically detailed down to each leaf and stone. Once our eyes go there, they tend to stay there, absorbed in nature, leaving the lady and her monster behind, odd Mediterranean strays in an alpensee.
Over all, the first third or so of the show feels disjunctive in this way. It’s a tour through the mechanics of an ambitious career in formation, as Dürer unsmoothly cuts and pastes images, shakes up mediums and illustrates theories about perspective and portion. Sometimes the pedagogue wins out, as in dry diagrams of body types. Sometimes, fabulously, the sensualist-realist prevails.
In the 1503 watercolor “Virgin and Child With a Multitude of Animals and Plants,” he turns the world into a vast petting zoo. In the “Great Piece of Turf,” from the same year, he gives an insect’s-eye view of a clump of grass that is also a mini-Eden, atremble with succulent life.
After his second stay in Venice, from 1505 to 1507, the hard-to-mesh parts in his art came together, particularly in his studies for paintings: images of heads, draped cloth and expressive hands — as often as not his own — drawn in dark ink and light wash on colored paper. Forms he might once have treated as cranky, Germanic grotesques — an aged apostle’s head, for example — now have a highly polished, sculptural sheen. He was at the peak of his powers, riding the crest of his fame, when, in 1512, he landed a powerful patron in Emperor Maximilian I, who asked Dürer to paint his portrait. A superb bust-length chalk drawing in the show is a souvenir of the commission.
What Dürer was angling for was a lifetime imperial pension, and he got one, though at the price of taking on hackwork. Along with other court artists, he was ordered to design an array of ceremonial stage props to enhance the emperor’s status visually. Most of this stuff — chariots, arches, froufrou armor — was just shiny, expensive junk, and a waste of creative energy. Dürer probably came to think so when, in 1519, Maximilian died, and to the artist’s shock, the pension was revoked. But by then Dürer had already been going through something, a psychological or spiritual crisis, or a series of them. Traces are there in the art.
In 1513 his mother, to whom he was deeply attached, sickened and died a painful death, and Dürer produced three of his most densely detailed and symbolically fraught images, the woodcuts titled “Knight, Death and the Devil,” “St. Jerome in His Study” and “Melancolia I.” Seen side by side on a gallery wall, they’re the optical equivalent of stages of mourning, from stoicism, to denial to nightmarish despair.
Existentially unnerved, the artist also began to dwell on the figure of Martin Luther, expressing an interest in painting him. Dürer ultimately may not have left Roman Catholicism behind, but his faith was shaken. He kept producing religious images, though some of the latest pieces in the exhibition, which has been organized by Andrew Robison, senior curator of prints and drawings at the National Gallery, are of secular or quasi-secular subjects.
In 1520, feeling financially stretched, Dürer traveled to the Netherlands and Cologne to hawk his prints, sketching, as always, as he went. He drew a view of Antwerp harbor with a few faultless pen strokes in otherwise empty space. In a zoo in Ghent, he saw his first live lions and drew them too, swiftly, softly, in silverpoint, the medium of his youth.
On this trip, for a change, Agnes, by now a stout matron, came with him. He sketched her in casual half-length. Wearing a bulky bonnet with a scarflike chin strap, she is shown glancing off to one side, as if appraising everything around her, heavy-featured, cool-eyed, unromantic, skeptical, a Nuremberg hausfrau. Yet he had depicted her a few years earlier in a very different way, in a study for a painting called “The Virgin and Child With Saint Anne,” now in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
In that drawing, she is Anne, mother of Mary, grandmother of Jesus. She wears the same bulging headpiece, but now it tightly encloses her face, coming down to her eyebrows, covering her chin, so that just her mouth, slightly smiling, and her eyes, one focused forward, the other drifting off, are visible. Set against a black ground, she’s a monument, marble-carved, and a spiritual force; and she’s Agnes, his Agnes, the grounded, stay-at-home spouse of a brilliant international star and, you suspect, a source of the realness behind his shine.

“Albrecht Dürer: Master Drawings, Watercolors, and Prints From the Albertina” opens on Sunday and runs through June 9 at the National Gallery of Art, National Mall between Third and Ninth Streets, along Constitution Avenue NW, Washington; (202) 737-4215, nga.gov.

Monday, March 11, 2013


UPDATE!Note test date change!!

Attention! Attention! Important dates to remember!

March 19th [Tuesday]: Test on Chapter 17
Romanesque Art "The Age of Pilgrimages"and Chapter 18-
Gothic Art 'The Age of the Cathedrals"
March 15th [Friday]: Research paper topics due:
Three potential topics followed by at least 9 research sources for each topic: if any are web site sources-a short synopsis of the site will be required...make VERY sure that you post only "legit" sources..."Gardner's 12th edition" is NOT at this point to be sited and generic sites such as www.ILIKEART.com either!!

Topics paper is to be typed spell checked etc! 
Also ...the Metropolitan Museum assignments are due too! 
  

Thursday, March 7, 2013


Dig it: is archaeology the new art?

The British Museum's exhibition of ice age art and its forthcoming blockbuster Life and Death in Pompeii and Herculaneum show the beauty of all things past
Sculpted marble reliefs for the Life and Death in Pompeii and Herculaneum at the British Museum
Art links past and present … Preparations for the the British Museum's Life and Death in Pompeii and Herculaneum exhibition. Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian
Two exciting exhibitions at the British Museum this spring delight the eye as much as the mind with ancient artefacts that also happen to be thrilling objects. Ice Age Art is an eye-opening encounter with carvings that still fascinate and beguile tens of thousands of years after they were created. What do these things tell us about hunter-gatherers in ice age Europe? It's a complex question, but the exhibition wants us to start by just appreciating this art as art.
Soon, some equally seductive art will be on show in the museum's old Reading Room, when ancient Roman paintings form part of the eagerly anticipated blockbuster Life and Death in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Roman paintings revitalise the luxury of a lost way of life frozen under the ash of Vesuvius. As with ice age wonders, when you look at frescoes from Pompeii the pleasure of art makes ancient history immediate.
This is surely the best way for archaeologists to popularise their research. Art is a two-way mirror that links past and present. It lives for us, and it can make the past it embodies live just as vividly. The term "caveman" seems massively inadequate when you see the art that early humans left in caves. Similarly, the Roman world is a lot richer than in the film Gladiator when you contemplate its paintings of myths, gardens and erotica.
Obviously, some aspects of archaeology cannot be made over as "art"; arrowheads and pottery sherds are not about to electrify the art world. But the information they reveal is invaluable. Walk through the permanent collection of the British Museum and you will see far more time-battered, utilitarian objects than artistic masterpieces. That is as it should be.
Yet in drawing all eyes to the stupendous beauty of things that survive from the past, archaeologists are returning to the origins of their subject. Two more exhibitions reveal how art helped the first archaeologists to imagine antiquity. The General, the Scientist and the Banker at the English Heritage Quadriga gallery shows artworks of the past, commissioned by 19th-century students, in their efforts to imagine the lives of ancient people. Meanwhile, at Sir John Soane's Museum, exquisite and eerie images of Paestum's ancient temples drawn by Piranesi in the 18th-century brood on a lost world. These shows about the history of archaeology reveal that crossovers between excavation and the art world are nothing new.
The past is a foreign country, they say. Art is a passport to it.