The Great Art Debate

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Thanks Monty, I'll read that when I get in.

Meanwhile, the image of the day has landed in my inbox.

https://www.artfinder.com/story/george- ... keys-1909/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I joined ArtF after your first post... it's interesting in the artists it 'promotes'... But there's a surprising lack of discussion (unless I'm missing something)...

I suspect that if it delivers a new pic every day - the there is no time to digest and grapple with any of them!

Interesting, but think about how most people treat galleries - trying to 'do' the Prado in a few hours or similar.

I think one day per painting isn't bad - worse than the time is the inadequacy of the computer screen.

And it isn't really one day that you have. I have thought about a few of those works and artists for longer than their allocated day now.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

A familiar piece by the all-time greatest, today:

https://www.artfinder.com/story/michela ... 1-1504-57/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Prufrock]

Quick question. Did the renaissance sculptors paint their works, as the greek artists they took inspiration from did, or did they leave them unpainted as that was (I don't know this) how they found the classical works?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Quick question. Did the renaissance sculptors paint their works, as the greek artists they took inspiration from did, or did they leave them unpainted as that was (I don't know this) how they found the classical works?

I've never seen any evidence that the Renaissance sculptors painted their work. (Maybe somebody else knows differently?!)

The only thing remotely like that I have seen is some 'tinted' neoclassical sculptures from the late 18th/early 19th century, like this one in Liverpool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tinted_Venus_02.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

A familiar piece by the all-time greatest, today:

https://www.artfinder.com/story/michela ... 1-1504-57/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is easy to lose heart when it comes to commenting, when the first comment following one's own is "this baby is huge".

[Montreal Wanderer]

A familiar piece by the all-time greatest, today:

https://www.artfinder.com/story/michela ... 1-1504-57/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is easy to lose heart when it comes to commenting, when the first comment following one's own is "this baby is huge".

Hopefully she is referring to the whole statue, not his.... oh never mind.

I would guess painting sculptures was pre-renaissance from this

Most Renaissance sources, in particular Vasari, credited northern European painters of the 15th century, and Jan van Eyck in particular, with the "invention" of painting with oil media on wood panel. However, Theophilus (Roger of Helmarshausen?) clearly gives instructions for oil-based painting in his treatise, On Various Arts, written in 1125. At this period it was probably used for painting sculptures, carvings and wood fittings, perhaps especially for outdoor use.

[TANGODANCER]

Anybody that would paint a marble or bronze sculpture should be in another job.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Anybody that would paint a marble or bronze sculpture should be in another job.

As Prufrock's question suggests, it used be the normal thing to do in antiquity.

http://www.colourlovers.com/blog/2008/0 ... -antiquity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is hard for us to accept that they ever did anything so tasteless!

[Montreal Wanderer]

Anybody that would paint a marble or bronze sculpture should be in another job.

As Prufrock's question suggests, it used be the normal thing to do in antiquity.

http://www.colourlovers.com/blog/2008/0 ... -antiquity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is hard for us to accept that they ever did anything so tasteless!

I don't view this as conclusive, Jon - some art historians now dispute a previously commonly held view that the sculptures were not coloured. It states:

Researchers believe, particalurly Vinzenz Brinkmann who has been doing this research for the past 25 years, that artists used mineral and organic based colors and after centuries of deterioration any trace of pigment leftover when discovered, would have been taken off during any cleaning processes done before being put on display, washing the historical art clear of its true colors.

It seems to me there would be forensic evidence of this colouring even if the museum did clean up the piece. And certainly they could check on any new piece recently dug up. I wouldn't think all evidence would be destroyed. Brinkmann et al may be correct but I would like more evidence for it to be conclusively proven.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I thought that techniques using ultra violet provided the sort of evidence you speak of?

I admit I haven't looked into it in any detail.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I thought that techniques using ultra violet provided the sort of evidence you speak of?

I admit I haven't looked into it in any detail.

So would I (think there were techniques) but I didn't see any mention in the article - it seemed to indicate proof had washed off with time. Perhaps I did not read it closely enough.

[TANGODANCER]

Anybody that would paint a marble or bronze sculpture should be in another job.

As Prufrock's question suggests, it used be the normal thing to do in antiquity.

http://www.colourlovers.com/blog/2008/0 ... -antiquity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is hard for us to accept that they ever did anything so tasteless!

It's not something I've ever studied, and the Egyptians painted and gilded many of their wooden carvings, indeed the practise has existed in altars etc for a long time. In sculptures the natural material items have also existed a long time as in Chinese, Japanese etc works in jade, ivory, onyx etc . I'm surprised at marble ever being painted.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I thought that techniques using ultra violet provided the sort of evidence you speak of?

I admit I haven't looked into it in any detail.

So would I (think there were techniques) but I didn't see any mention in the article - it seemed to indicate proof had washed off with time. Perhaps I did not read it closely enough.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119672317588212335.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is interesting, if still a bit light on the details of the technology and its reliability. I would like to know, for example, how precisely paint can be dated, if at all.

This narrative about the preference for white being a post 1800 curatorial fashion is difficult to follow. It seems reasonably clear to me that the Renaissance sculptors, one of the greatest of whom was the catalyst for this discussion, thought they were reviving the traditions of antiquity by producing sculpture out of unpainted marble.

I would now like to know what gave John Gibson the idea of tinting his Venus that now lives in the Walker Gallery in Liverpool.

[Prufrock]

I didn't realise it was controversial. We were taught it as if it were a well-accepted view, although I don't think any of my lecturers specialised in art or sculpture. I wondered whether the renaissance artists even knew (or thought) the classical statues were painted, and if they did, whether they did paint theirs (which too has been worn away), or whether they (absolutely correctly) thought it looked better unpainted.

[TANGODANCER]

I didn't realise it was controversial. We were taught it as if it were a well-accepted view, although I don't think any of my lecturers specialised in art or sculpture. I wondered whether the renaissance artists even knew (or thought) the classical statues were painted, and if they did, whether they did paint theirs (which too has been worn away), or whether they (absolutely correctly) thought it looked better unpainted.

Bellinini's work gives total support to that. Magnificent.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

https://www.artfinder.com/story/dante-g ... ream-1880/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

William will love this, I am sure.

[thebish]

https://www.artfinder.com/story/dante-g ... ream-1880/

William will love this, I am sure.

i've always thought that Jane Morris looks like a bloke in drag...

(you can have that and pass it off as one of your own erudite comments, mummy...)

[TANGODANCER]

There was little wrong with the Pre-Rapealite idea. They just brought a little romanticism into what, in reality was basically an unromantic period in the Victorian era. Charles Dickens, known to them all, and indeed a part patron, was painting a whole different picture in words of the grim, bleak opposite side of life at the same time. Must admit, not one of Rosetti's finest facial attempts.

[bobo the clown]

https://www.artfinder.com/story/dante-g ... ream-1880/

William will love this, I am sure.

i've always thought that Jane Morris looks like a bloke in drag...

(you can have that and pass it off as one of your own erudite comments, mummy...)

... and a miserable looking fecker at that !!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

There was little wrong with the Pre-Rapealite idea. They just brought a little romanticism into what, in reality was basically an unromantic period in the Victorian era. Charles Dickens, known to them all, and indeed a part patron, was painting a whole different picture in words of the grim, bleak opposite side of life at the same time. Must admit, not one of Rosetti's finest facial attempts.

Does anyone know what the Pre-Raphaelite 'idea' actually was though? Other than a vague sense of rebellion against Joshua Reynolds and the art establishment at the time?

At any rate, the PRB was founded in 1848 (when other European countries were having proper revolutions) and was disbanded because of infighting (the curse of bohemian/left wing arty types since the dawn of time) by 1853. This painting by Rossetti in 1880 can scarcely be said to be part of that movement, such as it was, if you ask me.