Art Institute of Chicago Part XIV: European Paintings VII

Pacing through more exhibits, I was glad that there were some variety in this next gallery. As I walked into the light beige room, I was aware of the following nearly all black and white painting, which absolutely struck me. Indeed, through many years of observing art, it never occurred to me that it was possible for paintings to be black and white. Though technically, the following painting isn't actually black and white, with some hints of red at the sculptures on the left side of the painting - the large majority of it remains black and white. To see this remarkable style certainly was a breath of fresh air after gazing at the numerous colored oil paintings.

Getting into the specifics, I realize how strange it is to see a black and white painting - especially if it was framed like this. Supposedly it was possible to draw on a canvas this large, and then frame it, it would certainly be odd because of the artistic convention to not frame drawings. Therefore, since black and white is frequently associated with drawings, seeing the golden frame around this painting assures me that indeed I was looking at a painting and not a drawing. If anything, paintings enable artists to really create superior lighting - such insane amounts of shading is entirely unpractical using the thin tip of a pencil. I believe that this painting represent a man losing consciousness as he come to contact with an angel, represented by the cherubic babies with the rays of god shining down on the man. Unlike some divine witness artworks, the man is accompanied by a witnesses, who are represented as proportionally shorter men with different skin colors. This distinct difference in scale is odd because such hierarchic scale hasn't been widely practiced since the days of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Like half of European paintings, this one does not have a discrete background - instead showing a dark background that can only meant to represent the darkened interior of an abandoned building. Or, as I theorize that pre-industrial buildings often lack in interior light because of a lack of light-bulbs and insufficient clerestories.

Imagine my surprise to see a marble sculpture in frontal deep relief right after viewing the "black and white" painting from above. Given the European context, I drew instant parallels to Greco-Roman aesthetics not only because of the material and color, but also the proportions and facial features certainly indicate an obsession with the human form similar to Hellenistic tastes. However, it is unlike Greco-Roman to create such a deep relief with a protruding z axis plane - such artwork was ornamental and required disproportionate amount of marble to create the scene - especially if it was life-sized. However, by far the most striking aspect of this entire marble relief is the instant shot of deja vu - this marble relief is depicting the same exact scene as the painting above. Without looking at the label (it's too small to read), I conjecture that this marble is modeled after the painting in this chicken and egg scenario because black and white paintings are rare and disagree with painting conventions during this period - black and white paintings cannot be spontaneous. By basing the subject matter over the marble sculpture, it acquires a sense of legitimacy that otherwise would not be bestowed upon. In addition, the lack of color in the painting indicates that the original sculpture had no color or that the painter simply wanted to stay true to the source material. The 3D projection of this relief sculpture really enhances the concept of negative space and allows a greater emphasis on the main subject despite the monotone color. Indeed, I think it's easier to make out the cherubs in this sculpture than the painting. I must admit that seeing those two artworks together was really fascinating as it allows a more direct comparison when using the same scene.

If I learned anything from the previous sculpture, it was that the trend in this gallery appears to be based around Greco-Roman motifs. Knowing what ancient Greek vases and amphora looked like, it is immediately obvious at first glance that this vase copied the general form of Greek amphora, but coated with gold and inlaid with depictions of pink flowers...in color. Ancient Greek amphora only utilized two different forms of coloring - red figure and black figure. There was no gold figure with pretty pink flowers, so it was pretty clear not only from the content but also from how immaculate it looks. This vase appears particularly ageless - it was hard to believe it was hundreds of years old. From the gold (or gilded) construction, the intended purpose of this vase was clearly for ornamental purposes, though the handles on the sides enabled some degree of safe mobility and transport. If anything, a vase like this likely shows what such pieces looked like when it as first produced, offering insight into how it may have looked inside a Renaissance house. However, unlike vases in places like ancient China, this vase was clearly meant to decorate a wealthy patron's residence, not in cultural places like temples. This meant that the vase had no other contextual importance - was a Greek inspired vase with gold and flowers made to decorate a house. It wasn't meant as a offering vessel for any deities. For these reasons, I took immense pleasure in observing this particular vessel for it's relative importance and aesthetic merit.

Some Western artworks like to portray contemporary or foreign characters and events in a very Hellenistic manner - such as the Judith beheading Holofernes, which took place in ancient Assyria. In that particular painting, both Judith and Holofernes were decidedly Westernized and dressed in Greco-Roman fashion. Sometimes if may become difficult for the uninitiated to discern the difference between a painting depicting an anachronism or authentic Greco-Roman events. Which brings me to this painting. The striking features of the Roman toga are clearly visible in this painting and the female stola is also present in this scene. In this scene, there are clues that indicate that this was a piece meant to portray Roman lifestyle. For one thing, women in stola are rarely shown at all in Christian paintings and sometimes, not at all. Also, despite the inaccurate color choices, no signs of divinity could be discerned from this image as well as the absence of Jesus in the painting. Finally, the two men shown here show some very archetypal Roman facial features and hairstyle - indicating further that this painting is more historically accurate. Even still, it remains unclear where in the Roman Empire this painting took place in, thanks to dark background painting conventions. Finally, of note is to notice that both this and the black and white paintings show unrealistic lighting. For example, even though it was implied that cherubs was casting the light from heaven - the background was completely dark. Likewise, this painting looks as if somebody cast a spotlight on these people to illuminate their physical appearance. This may be a mechanism devised to painters to circumvent the traditional lack of ambient light in Ancient societies while showing enough details to convey a story or idea.

So far, I must say that this exhibit was by far one of the most memorable ones that I've had the privilege of strolling through as it nicely delineate several key artistic concepts and movements. I don't know if the museum intentionally structured it or not, but this exhibit was what I call a real breath of fresh air compared to the relative uniformity of previous European exhibits.

Art Institute of Chicago Part XIII: European Paintings VI

More paintings ensured as I strolled casually into the next exhibit. By this time, I had been inundated with just a lot of paintings and I was beginning to feel just a bit weary of the sheer number of paintings. Indeed, I experienced what I consider to be a form of slight vertigo because perhaps because of the density of colors that I experienced while traversing these galleries. I found myself a place to sit down before continuing on my journey through the museum.

If I had to describe this painting, it would be that there seems to be much going on. The most prominent figure in this painting is the angel, who puts himself in a weird situation as far as Christian art goes - the angel is not floating, has no halos and the way he interacted with the mortals around him suggests a different image than how the Bible usually portrays angels - as secretive almost mythical beings. Instead, this angel appears to be offering some form of divine guidance by pointing towards the sky. Surrounding him is also an odd assortment of participants - a man with nothing but a loincloth on, a nobleman, a man with a turban and two other men. In fact, not all of them appear to be willing participants in this lecture as the man with the turban appears to be dozing off at the lower right hand corner. I am indeed interested in the painter's decision to depict a nearly naked man standing on top with a flag in his hand. If anything, perhaps this serves as allegory for two things: that both the commoner and rich believe in God but also serves to remind the viewer that Muslims are also monotheistic. The nondescript man with a turban is not emphasized perhaps because as a reflection of European religious sensitivity. The man with the flag is probably representing the idea that religion is one of the factors that unite a group of people in a specified territory. In terms of the color presented - all of the colors used are the dark or strong variant - there are no light or medium hued clothing colors to create a striking painting. Much like some of the paintings before them, the usage of the black background help emphasize all of these colors and the dynamics and intensity of the scene.

I choose this one because this is literally the complete opposite in terms of color palette compared to the previous painting. This one is much lighter colored and has a more open composition because of the open blue sky background implemented. The shade of blue is actually a slightly unrealistic shade of powder blue. Despite that, the lighter color definitely help set the tone for the entire painting. I apologize for the blurry image because I was in such a hurry to snap each photo. Regardless, this painting appears to depict heavenly beings communicating with mortal men. Despite the blurry left hand side, it is easy to point out the cherub on the left side clinging to the rock or cliff. Sitting above the cherub appears to be a woman lying back and expressing herself in an assertive manner. Her body language is supported by her hierarchic position on the painting - she is the tallest. Indeed, the man on the lower right hand side is sitting down and looking up at the woman. In the middle appears to be another woman also panning her head up - in a clear deference to the authority of the top-most woman. Otherwise, it is unclear what the topic between these subjects were but regardless it is cast in a much lighter tone than the previous painting which I felt was a breath of fresh air. When I observed this painting, I notice and felt almost like I could breath better after seeing this painting. This may be because the color contrast and overall theme is much lighter.

Hierarchic scale is a technique espoused by people as early as Egypt and Mesopotamia and this painting does an excellent job of continuing that trend. The subject of this painting needs no introduction - it's one of Virgin Mary and baby Jesus being greeted by admirers and followers. There is one exception to the admirer and follower role; the man on the right holding up a sheet of paper. Again, there is some speculation upon what the paper says or intends, but it also appears that the man on the left isn't complaining or begging. This fact may be purposeful to illustrate the gentle and forgiving nature of Virgin Mary. The man with the sheet could be an allegory for the ten commandments and other sacred Biblical texts  With that assumption, it could be a form of trial in which Mary oversees which people are worthy of her attention. It is incredibly notable that the colors that the Virgin Mary wears is markedly more colorful than those of the two men underneath her (red, white and blue) vs (two shades of tan and black). The color dichotomy could be a nod to stereotypical gender colors - though a concrete, named term like sexism did not exist back then. Regardless, This is an interesting way to depict Mary and baby Jesus because they never assumed physical and mortal authority. If anything, this painting remains a deceptively simple painting with complex allegorical themes.

This painting is one of the more unclear paintings I've seen so far, but it clearly shows a cardinal or pope bestowing some form of religious blessing for the man in the shiny armor. In a deviation from color conventions, the pope in particular (to a lesser extent, the knight) unveils himself in a brilliant blue trimmed robe that signified his position. Indeed in Catholic tradition, Cardinals and other ministers are not known for their colorful robes, but this cardinal/pope demonstrates the inaccuracy of that statement. However, because this is probably an painter's conception of the event - it is actually unknown if the minsters actually wore different dyed clothes or not. Still, assuming that this holds true, then indeed the artist succeeds in framing the scene around the religious minister and the knight or soldier. Ironically, the ruler is wearing a brown shirt in direct contrast to the colorfulness of the knight and minister. Finally, the woman at the lower left hand color also seems to carry some of the blue tones. But what makes the woman most interesting is her relative position to the other men. She is seen lying down looking at the two men in front of her, looking at them. I have some personal speculation this was a sexist ruse again - especially with the way the painter decided to depict the woman on the floor. Still overall, the composition of this painting is decidedly inside out. In other words, the center portion is processed first before taking in the adjacent sections by using colors and the inclusion of depth at the back with the tower and arches. I liked this painting, but I also felt that the people on left hand side was more of a token inclusion than anything because of historical irrelevance. Continuing through the exhibit, I was able to rejuvenate myself after exploring these new dynamic paintings. Indeed, after a while, I was able to overcome the sense of "vertigo" that I described during the opening paragraph. Onto the next exhibit!