Religion and Visuals

Susanna and the Elders, painted by Artemisia Gentileschi during the Baroque period in 1610, Rome, has strong influences from the religious themes of the time. This is a beautiful piece of art, and it’s also very intriguing that the artist was a woman, since it was still a very early time for women to be appreciated or respected in the arts.  And in fact, she was not respected; even today, many of her works are credited to her father. This piece also is so different from other pieces of the time, even though she was influenced by other greats such as Carravaggio.

It truly spoke to me; the fact that she dared to change the portrayal of Susanna into a feminist approach. This painting also doesn’t show much tenebrism or chiaroscuro like her other works do; she seemed to be painting it in the style of Michelangelo rather than Carravaggio. This work was a few years earlier than her others, and as a 17-year-old, her style was still developing. Still, this painting shows great skill for such a young person, and I was astounded when I learned her age! The colors are bright and we can see the left half of the painting has a hint of tenebrism. It’s also a beautiful painting with a well plotted canvas.

During the Baroque era, the Catholic church was fighting Protestant growth through the Counter Reformation. This encouraged more art work to be made so it could influence the people. As a result, more and more people were obtaining art, and the merchant class grew because of this. They also said that art should be easily understood for the sake of the common people’s understanding, but should still evoke emotion. These are all apparent in Susanna.

1610; Oil on canvas; 1.70m by 1.21m; Artemisia Gentileschi.

Politics and Music

The following symphony, aptly named Surprise Symphony, (Symphony No. 94 in G Major), by Franz Joseph Haydn in 1791, certainly demonstrates the political movements of the time. The French revolution and the American revolution caused more musicians to no longer write for only aristocrats. The middle class also demanded more from these same musicians.

Music became less complex and more predictable, yet also repetitive because of this. Classical music was greatly influenced by the American Revolution (1776-1781), which called for basic human rights, and therefore a higher value for every person without just looking at their social standing, (most Americans were on the same level anyway unless they worked for the king; and in that case, they’d be British). But at the same time, the people were also looking for more technical feats to the music. The piano was also being developed at the time, becoming more dynamic and less monotonous with its development. This is also a reflection of how the symphony was being developed. Politics were also separated from religion at this time, a very important influence in the art from here on out. This was a time when some of the more well-know musicians for today were popular, such as Mozart and Beethoven.

I chose this piece, if not just for its history, (Haydn’s relationship with Mozart and Beethoven), but because it is a work most people are familiar with. And it’s no wonder, because it epitomizes the symphony. They called him “Papa Haydn”, after all, because of his development of the symphony. This piece also shows Haydn’s personality; the title and composition are a joke! I don’t think many artists had done anything like this yet! And I’m sure that it please the common people. Watch, and you’ll see what I mean.

Science and Theatre

The invention of talking movies transformed theatre forever. As a result, actors changed their styles and a higher demand for more films and more professions in movies were a few of the many changes.After television was invented in 1925, the first motion picture with sound, Don Juan, was released to the public in 1926. Up until then, television was still a secondary entertainment source to most because of its lack of sound. But Warner Bro.s release of The Jazz Singer, people were crazy for motion pictures.

The Modern era was marked by a rejection of theatre. Realism and Naturalism were now more accessible because of the television. There are now subtleties that an actor on film can do that would be impossible for a theatre actor. Lighting, stage set up, costume design, even make-up artists styles changed from caked-on shadows to everyday wear, (well, they had to learn these things through time, and black and white t.vs made it hard to actually see the picture clearly). There was also now an emphasis on the inter workings of characters, while taking out the predetermined divinity of God.

Hedda Gabler, (1890), by Henrick Ibsen, is a prime example of the many changes that television made to theatre. I also like the plot of the play, (or should I say movie?). It’s much different from how we would usually view older women of her status; she’s more independent and kinder. She even feigns ignorance of her nephew’s recent expedition and talks bad about her niece, in a way, behind her back to the maid! There is even irony, with the hat. It’s a clever play, and I also like the style of the writer. It’s a funny script; it’s no wonder Ibsen received a government stipend to write!

On the Way to Vegas

The superficial story outline includes a bachelor party to Las Vegas made up of 3 friends and the groom’s brother-in-law; the groom being Doug, bro-in-law: Alan, and the two other friends, Stew, the abused dentist, and Phil, the ironic teacher/badboy. (Because this is a very popular film, I’m not going to give every detail of the story, so be prepared. This is an essay after all). The three are sent off with their quirky new friend in the father-in-law’s 1970′s Mercedes-Benz 280 SE convertible. This is gonna be fun.

Who Let the Dogs Out? Who, who, who?!

Well, it would have been. But this is a movie and Las Vegas, so some shi*s goin’ down. When they first arrive, we can see a lot of panning from above of the city and later, of the Mojave desert. But most of the shots in the movie are quick to switch from character to character, emphasizing the chaos of the film.  The director, Todd Philips, also uses the bright background lights to cast shadows on their faces when they’re in the desert and whenever they’re outside. During these scenes, we know that something bad just happened, like the naked Asian man kicking their asses with a crowbar, or during the call of shame to the bride saying they lost her groom. This causes a very effective mood of sadness or loss.There are some fade in’s at the beginning of the film, when it’s showing serene pictures delicate corsages and white laced dresses. Philips utilizes interesting angles through security cameras and a montage of pictures at the end. He also gives wide shots for the audience to infer the time and place of the next scene. For example, after getting a shot of the four of them, the camera pans upward to a city view and fast forwards time till in the morning when it fades to white and then to Stew’s face on the ground. With every transition there is also a song, usually a popular song maintaining the  said “party” theme; “Who let the Dogs Out?!”  There are also two short songs sung by Alan and Stew. Alan’s song is sweet, and is about their new friendship. Stew’s song is earlier, while they are resting. It seems like he is trying to evoke the gods in helping in their search for Doug. During the latter song, a black and white memory montage is played with shots of Doug in it, bringing the audience back to the main story line. In the slower shots, like in Stew’s house with his girlfriend and when Stew is first awakened from being hung over, the camera is being carried, and the shakiness gives a very realistic view, as if you were following them around in the room. Instead of using animation for the tiger attack, the director uses a doll, making the scene more comedic rather than scary. Added animation is used at the blackjack table scene when Alan is counting cards in his head, (it shows a bunch of numbers and graphs floating around that aren’t really relevant). Some other effects the director used were things like car crashes and quite a few makeup artists were used to create the injuries for this film. These visuals created great effects that really demonstrated the directors skill. I was impressed overall with how these effects made me feel about the action.

There are many symbols in this movie that unite the friendship theme. The first we see is the car, which symbolizes the breaking down of inhibitions. Throughout the movie, the car is destroyed while the three search for Doug, learning about each other, appreciating each other. Next we come upon a tiger in the bathroom, a baby in the closet, and Stew’s missing lateral incisor. The tiger and the baby both represent renewal, while the baby leans towards innocence and the tiger leans towards death. We can see this same innocence reflected in Alan, who ends up carrying the baby. Notice also that Alan and the baby are wearing white; white pants and white bonnet.

Innocence reflected

The tiger, which has replaced Doug, represents death, but simultaneously, renewal. With the distinct possibility that Doug could be dead, they search, but only to find Mike Tyson in their room, where he then lays out Alan. They return the tiger to him, and with its return, they experience a sense of relief, (obviously, it’s a tiger). But as they are at Tyson’s house, he shows footage of Doug caught on the security camera, giving them hope and renewing their search for him. They also give back the baby to the stripper, showing their loss of innocence as we learn more about Alan’s sordid past and Stew’s marriage “to a whore”. Direct quote. The Holocaust ring which Stew received from his grandmother was given to this whore, symbolizing Stew’s commitment to bad relationships, as he was intending to give it to his awful girlfriend. Stew also had the hardest time attaching himself to Alan. Lastly, the used condom they find in the Mercedes after getting it out of the impound symbolizes the breaking of bonds; this scene is right before they find out Alan drugged their drinks and fight over it.

Mojave Desert; Post-ass kicking

Roof scene; Bonds are made

Just before they find Doug, the characters all come together. Black Doug says something that helps Stew realize where Doug is; he tackles Phil and takes the phone, fabricating a story to the bride, something he seems to have done quite a bit to his own girlfriend. After obtaining Doug and rushing to the wedding in the beat up Mercedes, we learn about Alan’s less than reputable friends, (a tatted up guy brings him a few tuxedo’s mid-freeway, he explains that’s one of his friends). The whole time Phil is driving the car while talking Doug down, preparing him for the wedding.

I chose this film because I am a huge fan of comedy, not just because of its success in the box office. I’m familiar with the directors other work, Old School, and he used some of the same actors in this movie, like the wedding singer, Dan Finnerty. But they were all cameos, smaller parts. All the actors are seasoned comic actors, but there is still fresh blood introduced, which was very refreshing for me. I think, although I’m not sure, that the actors improvised like in  most comedies. Other than all that, I can actually relate to this film. Spending a night with friends and getting totally messed up. Everything is chaos the next day, and you’re all feeling like crap. The shared experience definitely brings you closer. In a sense, this movie has very existentialist values. They decide to view the photos on Stew’s camera, then delete them. It also seems to be a social commentary on what we value in today’s society. Overall, I would say this is a great movie, not just for the comedy, but for its great use of symbolism, the directing style, and the actors abilities.

Some developments include the formation of onnagata. You see, women in theater were often prostitutes, but the government banned them soon after it’s creation to protect the peoples morals.This put more value on performance rather than beauty, drama rather than dance. Men who play the parts of women are now called onnagata. The tachiyaku is the head male role. Below you can see a drawing of the famous mie (mee-eh) pose, where the actor stared really hard to one side, causing one of his eyes to look crossed.

"mie" pose

Kabuki plays could be a grand story of princes saving princesses, or it could be a simple story involving peasants. The narrator explains the story in the video, which I encourage you all to watch! Mind, this is only an excerpt of the play, not the whole thing…

My next video is of a Bunraku performance; that is, Japanese puppetry. Bunraku and Kabuki influence each other greatly during the 1700′s, and that is partly why I have chosen the two for this project.

The shamisen, as you can hear, is a very twangy sounding guitar instrument. There are three strings on the instrument. The sound is unique to Eastern theater, having a very strong vibrato. You can hear the singer match this vibrato very beautifully throughout the play. The wooden piece sitting next to the instrument in the picture below is much like a pick, where the musician cradles the long part in their palm, catching the strings with the curved side of the pick. Both are used to emphasize the actions in the play.

Shamisen

The chanter, or tayu is the narrator for the play. The tayu are divided into two categories: utai and katari. The following Bunraku video displays both of these. You can hear the utai, or singing part in conjunction with the katari, or reciting and chanting. The utai is telling the emotions of the character, while the katari is telling the basic story, or what is happening to cause the character’s, (utai’s), song.

The daiko (dah-ee-koh) drum and the tsuzumi sound very much alike. They are both very important to the mood of the play. You can differentiate the two because the daiko is usually the one that signals the start and the end of the play. The tsuzumi has a very distinct “pon” sound, being the basis for the entire drum section and symbolizing  Japanese sound. All of these instruments are used in Kabuki and Bunraku, showing how similar both are to each other.

daiko drum

Tsuzumi

. . .Lacking clamor, this is naturally a place for roosting birds,

still it can accommodate an honored guest, roaming the glorious grove:

With wine cup in hand, the jug concealed, peruse the carried books.

The cart is gone, farewells said and Gold Horses (officials) waved away.

I offer the T’ai-shih (Wen Cheng-ming) my wishes for great longevity,

reviewing his years of glory and great virtue;

I have no other way to praise his exalted years,

and so here inscribe my prayers for his long life.

Wishing Grand Scribe Heng-shan (Wen Cheng-ming) great longevity,

his later student, Yuan Ch’iu.

Wen Cheng-ming (1470-1559) was one of the leading masters of the Southern Song, (Wu), school, and the painting was a gift for him. this is actually painted much in the styles taught at the Wu school, having light cool and warm washes to accentuate the space in the piece. This piece is unassuming with its precise lines and details, without pushing your eye to wander. It has very obvious focal points, but after all of that you follow the empty space to the unfinished bridge, and that keeps you going back for more. I enjoy pieces like this very much, Chinese art is probably one of the most beautiful art genres, combining poetry with painting. I find the space, again, to be the most appealing part of the piece. It makes it so mysterious but yet at the same time the artist has given so much to the piece! It’s truly a piece everyone can treasure.

Yuan Ch'iu,c. 1549, Ink and colors on paper, H.26-1/2 x W.14-1/8 in.

During this time China was expanding politically and culturally, (although it was within itself, which is still a big deal considering how large it is)! Pottery flourished at this time, especially enamel ware, which would have been more abundant due to the Yuan dynasty and the mixing of different cultures, causing more trade with West Asian and Islamic cultures. This next piece is very clever. Instead of using calligraphy like in the last piece, the pictures form the words. The fish are like a small puzzle, forming the letters for yu, meaning fish; but it’s also a pun because the same word sounds like their word for abundance, symbolizing a wish for wealth. The fact that this porcelain piece is painted in bright polychrome enamels means that the creator was probably trying to make up for the low quality in the pottery. The Jiajing period created the wucai, (5 color), design, but does not strictly limit it to 5 colors. There are many washes in pieces like this that have pale blue under glazes, (doucai), but as you can see, yellow, blue, red, green and brown are the dominant colors in the piece. I love the piece for its style; I’ve always had an affinity for eastern art. They’re more simple, and yet very detailed and thoughtful. The space in this piece really brings it together, the dark blue designs emphasizing the light blue washes. You can see from this piece, with such individuality, why the Chinese still hold their specific styles to this day.

Jar, Ming dynasty, Jiajing mark and period (1522–1566) China Porcelain painted in underglaze blue and overglaze polychrome enamels H. 9 1/8 in. (23.2 cm)

"Dark Star" by Betye Saar, created in 2006.

Betye Saar, Midnight Madonnas, 1996. Mixed-media assemblage, 14 x 11 x 1 ½ in.

The Liberation of Aunt Jemima, 1972. Betye Saar.

I really enjoy Betye Saar’s artwork. Assemblage artists, (or recyclers), like her always seem to be interesting. At the top is Dark Star, created quite recently in 2007. It’s difficult for me to decipher, but it seems to be a ghostly image of a woman in front of a white tree, two moons above her, and she seems to be kneeling on a grave, where we can see the body of a dark child. I could not find any information on this piece, but I did like it because it seemed to be very representational. It must mean a lot more to Saar, and I wish I could recognize the symbolism. But the message is clear enough: race should not stop love.

The second piece I liked right away because of the name! But it is really a beautiful piece; the pictures used in it are beautiful themselves. And again, I can’t get a good look at this piece, so I’m wondering if the image in the top right was originally of Af. Am. people or if she painted them that way. there’s a crescent moon again, most likely pointing out how slave owners had command of their days, while their only free time would have been at night. There’s also a key on a beaded rosary string set against pressed flowers. It’s a well put together piece and I really enjoy it.

Saar’s best known work, The Liberation of Aunt Jemima, is made of a found memo-pad holder, where the hand that would have held a pen now holds a rifle. As you can see, she’s a typical black mammy, adorned with head scarf, black as tar and a stupid, vacant expression on her face. Big-breasted and holding a pencil for you, she is now changed from a typical slave figure to a fighter for her own civil rights, freeing Aunt Jemima from the bondage of slavery and of the pencil. It’s actually quite a whimsical piece after recognizing the hate used to make this, and the love used to recycle it.

Saar also does something else with these found items other than make them art: she reminds us of a past life, even a recent life, where racism is an acceptable media for everyday. She shows us this through her art in more ways than words can. It’s amazing how much these pieces speak about the social and racial injustice done to her people and sex.

My next artist is Laurie Anderson who works in the realm of Performance art.

Above is an example of Performance Art. It would have been difficult to describe it, but I think this video link gives a good impression of the movement as a whole. Performance art in itself is a social commentary of capitalism in that instead of selling their art as a commodity, they bring the art to you, and that ties in with Laurie Anderson’s explanation in the following video. She likes to make social commentaries in her works, but I can honestly say that I like her performances.

Laurie doesn’t really say what we do wrong, she just observes and gives her interpretation of what she sees. It is like a dream in the way she describes the things she sees around her, and I kind of like that. It reminds me of the way Nabokov writes, (and I love him)! You see the event from her eyes during the performance, but at the same time you can see her seeing the event. It feels freeing, actually.

As you can see, I only have two by her, and one just gives the words, but that’s all I could find sadly.

Both artists, Betye Saar and Laurie Anderson have important things to say in regard to our society, and they say it in ways unique to themselves and their art. That alone, one can respect, but I also found myself enjoying their art and not just their words. Their pieces and performances said things to me about my life instead of telling me just what they thought I should see in their pieces. And like Laurie said, (I’m really actually inferring this, please don’t be confused),  it’s not what story you have to tell, but why are you telling it and how you tell it.

Jackson Pollock; 1950; Lavender Mist

Most people are confused by Abstract art, I know I was. But after reading a very interesting report on the subject myself, I realized that this movement isn’t really about the subject matter as much as it is about the artist and their artistic process. This is called Abstract expressionism; a fundamental element to understanding the Abstract art movement and Jackson Pollock’s art.

Abstract expressionism was born out of the abstract artists need to reach into their audience’s subconscious. They didn’t use subject matter so we wouldn’t have to concentrate on the meaning of the forms on the canvas, but rather the intentions of the artist. Along with this, the expressive method with which an artist painted was considered extremely important to Abstract Expressionism. As you can see from the painting above, Lavender Mist by Jackson Pollock, there are no intended geometric forms, and clearly he just slung paint at a canvas!

I find this painting, this artist, and this movement fascinating because I like the idea of finding our own answers to the questions we have. It’s not cut and dry like many representational paintings we see such as a painting of a flower or of a garden party; although, many people enjoy the security that comes with these types of paintings. There are no questions left unanswered, even with more complicated works like the Mona Lisa, because we know the gist of it. But with Pollock’s Lavender Mist, we begin with nothing. A person needs great imagination to divine the reasons for this work. And I think it’s safe to say that Pollock fully intended every person to have a different reaction to this piece.

What’s even more amazing about this movement is that it teaches us, or should, about the need for context! Context with everything, including art. Truly, paintings like the Mona Lisa would be worth nothing but decoration if we didn’t know that it was painted by Da Vinci. All art in history would be worthless if not for the story of the artist that goes along with it! This is a lesson that I hope everyone in my art class comes away with, because it is a very important lesson for life as well as for learning art history.

Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, Pablo Picasso

Cubism could be described as a collage of shapes, and is said to mean “to paste together”. That’s understandable just from looking at his work. You don’t need to have any knowledge of the arts to figure this out. But in a time when color was everything, Picasso’s art was seen as a huge transgression.

Along with Georges Braque, Pablo Picasso was one of the leading men in the Cubist art movements. Part of the Avant Garde movement, Cubism was, like most celebrated artistic movements today, condemned at the time it was created. It was said that Parisians were disgusted when Picasso showed Les Demoiselles d’Avignon in 1907.

It is a little shocking in subject alone, five women in a brothel, one with a crimson mask. And for that time, having whores as a subject of a painting would not have been okay! But Avant Garde in itself is a shocking movement; Fauvism, Cubism, Futurism and Expressionism are all extremely dynamic in the way they present form and color. But Picasso tends to use people as his subjects, and takes their form, separating them into other smaller forms, making up the whole. If you think about it in those terms, it’s not so different from, say, Matisse’s art style or any of the Impressionist painters. They were just working on a smaller scale, with brush strokes instead of large shapes. Matisse, by the way, was one the the artists who out right hated Picasso’s cubism. I always find it funny that in hindsight we realize these similarities, when at the time it’s just easier to disregard and punish for subtle differences, rather than trying to accept right away. But that is a human flaw we’ll all have to suffer with, I suppose.

Although I dislike Picasso the person, I appreciate his art because I am always the devil’s advocate! I have also done some cubist drawings and I find it beautiful. In fact, you can’t really draw anything well without realizing that everything is made of shapes, especially when adding shadow and depth. Picasso just took it to another level just like ALL other painters before him. It’s sad that we never realize this, even today when we think of ourselves as progressive and forward thinking, we still can’t realize the misled things we do, not just including art, but within our society. It’s a sad truth that we cannot accept things that are new and different. We have to have a logical order for everything which doesn’t make sense since we live in a world based on disorder and randomness.

1914-1917; Oil on canvas

Oil on canvas; Musée Marmottan Monet Paris

Water Lilies, 1906, Art Institute of Chicago

The best thing about Impressionism is the uniqueness of the style. (It actually kinda looks like when I get impatient with my art work and I say, “oh, screw this!”) But it’s much more than that. The strokes are placed very calculatingly. It’s even more important to plan the strokes since each one is clearly visible! But I can certainly say that I am a true lover of Impressionism; not only for the aesthetic appeal, but also for the artist’s values and styles.

The fact that the artist’s philosophical opinions could be derived from their work is fascinating! Previous art movements were greatly influenced by religion, but this movement shows how much people were effected by the works of Kant and Freud. And because they worked in a close-knit group in France, the artists shared the same views; that constant change was in everything, (and it was quite apparent in their work). They painted the same subject several times, studying the effect light had on their subject.

Impressionism concentrated so much so on the effects of light that they seemed to be transforming Baroque style artwork, like Caravaggio’s; but the paintings no longer used dramatic light to portray a certain mood to the audience, instead, the subject was light.

Caravaggio’s The Calling of Saint Mathew

Sciences of the mind were being developed even further at this time, so it’s no surprise that Impressionists, namely Monet, began to paint more abstract as he improved his style. And for many of his later pieces the attendee had to step away from the piece far enough for their minds to create an image.

I can also understand critics opinions of the piece. It looks unfinished, it’s just an impression! But the artists weren’t lazy and they weren’t leaving them unfinished. They just concentrated on different aspects of which compose a piece of art, and for that I believe this movement has created some of the most beautiful artwork in history!!

1890-91. Oil on canvas. Art Institute of Chicago.

1890-91. Oil on canvas. Art Institute of Chicago.

1891. Oil on canvas. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

During the end of the 18th century, art was moving from the Rococo style to Neo-Classical. While the Rococo period represented frivolity and self-indulgence, Neo-Classicism turned the exact opposite, into science and intellectual discourse. Art no longer depicted fête galantes, or outdoor leisurely activities that the aristocracy loved so much. Art began to feature real moments in history that stood for meaningful approaches to the human condition of the time.  

Now because this painting meant so much, I’ll explain a little about what it all means…

As you can see from “The Death of Socrates” by Jacques-Louis David, Socrates is depicted pointing to the sky just like Plato in “The School of Athens”, painted by Raphael in the Renaissance era. This simple gesture represented the Theory of Forms. While Socrates in the dialogues defends “his” theory of forms, the beliefs are attributed to his student Plato. Socrates never had a written work attributed to him, so it’s the writings of his contemporaries wherein we can glean some measure of what his actual character may have been. In the early dialogues, we see the historical Socrates, ultimately leading to his trial and death. The Theory of Forms was introduced in the middle dialogues, when Socrates became a mouthpiece for Plato’s beliefs.  Of course, this is not by any means pointing to a physical place, just that he is emphasizing that it is “above” our experience. Outside of the physical world is the true reality; incorruptible, immortal, unchanging. Socrates (Plato) saw the body as a cage for the immortal soul, dragging it down with earthly concerns. With death, a person would be set free.

While the painting shows a slave handing Socrates his poisoned wine, with all around sobbing, this scene is not completely accurate. Based on the text of The Phaedo, by Plato, those sitting around Socrates were able to hold back their tears until Socrates easily downs the wine in one gulp. At this point, they burst into tears. Socrates reprimands them, saying that he had sent the women out, (as can be seen in the background), so that he wouldn’t have to hear weeping.”‘What is this strange outcry?’ he said, ‘I sent away the women mainly in order that they might not offend in this way, for I have heard that a man should die in peace. Be quiet, then, and have patience’”. After having said this to his students, (Plato being the older man at the end of Socrates’ bed wearing white and Crito, the man griping Socrates’ leg), Socrates spoke his last words, “Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?”  As payment to the God of medicine, Asclepius, one would sacrifice a cock for good health and healing. By the above quote you can see that Socrates was still teaching his students his beliefs: that in dying, he was healed.

Because the Neo-Classical era was the most logical, rational time so far in history, (I guess that would just be my opinion), the paintings really reflected this. The theme of the day was discussing and philosophizing, just like in Socrates’ day. I picked this painting to decipher because I believe it’s subject represents all of what the Neo-Classical era stood for. Socrates believed in logical discourse, (he was famous for “reductio ad absurdum”: following a theory to its logical conclusion, such that the conclusion is absurd and cannot be accepted, such that the theory itself was disproven), very similar to the thought processes of Kant and Descartes.

What’s interesting about the 1700′s is that, although very different in subject matter and purpose, they quite often used Roman and Greek mythology and ideals, much like the Renaissance era. But they both used these themes to represent such different ways of thinking that it makes one wonder! What they had in common was their lack of religious influence in their works. The Renaissance era was all about religion, but the 1700′s moved from desires of the body to desires of the mind.  

But art in this era seems to move away from extreme values and focuses more on the representation of the art work. Obviously color is a very important part in this painting, while shadow is used as a means to an end, giving the painting enough depth and causing the focus to be on Socrates and the cup.

http://www.web-books.com/Classics/ON/B1/B1507/01MB1507.html

1601-02, Oil on canvas, 42 1/8 x 57 1/2 in; Neues Palais, Potsdam

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas, by Caravaggio, was made in 1602 with oil paint on canvas. 

As with many of Caravaggio’s paintings, he uses some of the most well-know biblical scenes as painting subjects. In this painting, what is depicted is Jesus, having just risen from the dead, visiting his apostles and proclaiming to them that he is risen by the power of, and his faith in, God. Saint Thomas, and what appears to be Saint Peter and one other saint, have hidden in a house, doors locked so they aren’t discovered and crucified like Jesus. And when Jesus appears before them Saint Peter thinks he is a ghost, not a living man. He doesn’t believe Jesus when he tells Thomas he is flesh and blood, so Jesus guides his hand to his spear wound on his ribs. After putting his hand in his wound does Thomas believe and ask for forgiveness from Christ. 

That’s how the story goes anyway. 

But I didn’t really pick this painting out for its story; this same scene has been painted and draw many times. I picked this one because of the interpretation and the composition. 

Caravaggio, as with many of his other works, likes to use primary colors, (as you can verify below). Color doesn’t seem that important to him, (a true Poussinist, if you will). He concentrates more on the line, light, and shadow of the characters, giving them true depth, not only to our eye, but to our mind as well. He also uses the diamond of heads in the top, middle of the painting as a starting point for our eyes to follow, from the shining baldness, down Christ’s body, and back up again, lingering over the wrinkles in the clothing and foreheads. 

Now examine Christ’s body. See how bright it is, the light almost directly on him? And how his head/face is darkened? This seems to symbolize some of the moods of the time. First of all, Caravaggio was different from most artists in the previous eras in that he used Realism in a religious painting. He made christ appear just as human as the other two, (but indicated that he wasn’t through simple painting techniques). The only thing different from Christ and the other men is that he is slightly less clothed, (and not bald). While that may be, he is more so than Renaissance art would have done him, (just a man-thong, usually). This brings to mind the Council of Trent; they would’ve had much influence on art in the Baroque era, above all being that this painting is a biblical reference! They would have commissioned many paintings like this, either through the church or for their own recreation.  

But that isn’t all. The Council, which was battling a large threat to the Catholic religion, (Protestants!), needed to spread their influence, and at the same time make the church seem less cold. The best way to do this was ease off of the “punishment” part of the church and move to a more forgiving mind-set that would appeal to the people while still reminding them of the purpose of the church. 

Caravaggio’s painting displays all of this: the Realism which would have really meant something to the common people, the emotion ebbing from Christ and the pain he’d endured. You can almost feel the wound yourself from looking at this painting. The way the skin is pulled away from the body, (that part makes me think of raw chicken, I can almost taste it! Blech!). And the guilt you feel after seeing the pain on Christ’s face. The surprise on Thomas’ reaction is understandable and makes you want to believe that the same would’ve happened to you in that situation.  

This is one of Caravaggio’s best paintings and it is understandable why so many artists were influenced by him. The raw emotion permeating from this lifeless canvas board is outstanding. And not only is it a well composed piece, but it is skillfully painted and expresses the artist’s voice.