![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
impulsereaderLet me first say that I am pretty much crap at producing any kind of visual art - other than photography, I guess. I love to go see art and learn about it, but I certainly have never studied it in any capacity. So when I sat down to type, ‘So I learned a couple things tonight,’ I realized that what I meant was, ‘A person and a sign offered me facts about specific pieces of artwork. These sources, while well-meaning and very likely quite knowledgable, could be mistaken and I would never know it.’ So that’s my disclaimer. Don’t go spouting any of this off without verifying with an expert you trust.
I was told that Ruben’s The Massacre of the Innocents was painted with a specific viewpoint in mind - an actual, physical viewpoint - and so its perspective doesn’t look correct unless you view it from the far right and about 15-20 feet underneath it; apparently the ‘to the right’ part of this is more important (or at least more feasible under the circumstances) than the ‘it should be hanging way above your head’ aspect, because that’s the first bit of information I got. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents_%28Rubens%29
Now, to me there’s nothing all that much wrong with the painting viewed straight on. But then I moved to my right, and things sort of seemed to shift slightly; I figured this was half his being right and half power of suggestion. But then he threw in the part about the ‘you can’t hang it properly because a modern audience doesn’t want to peer up at a single painting hung way above their heads’ and when I started picturing what I’d be seeing if I were doing so, I saw the angle the painter had used from the bottom right corner to the top left corner and I just sort of gaped. The scene really is much more powerful if viewed that way; the viewer is immediately hit with the most violent part of the painting; the emotion of horror, then violence, and it all sort of disseminates from there, eventually into a sunset-streaked sky.
This was all helped, of course, by the fact that I had spent the entire day trying to make the lemon look larger or smaller, or the Toronto landmark in question look larger or smaller by manipulating the lemon, my camera, my hands, the zoom, and at one point was tempted to recruit the help of two complete strangers. I’d already dropped to my knees dozens of times that day. I almost did it in the gallery just to get closer to the full effect. I sort of wish I had. (Incidentally, I recommend always travelling with a lemon. It not only provides a useful educational tool for perspective, but it can also allow you to instantly introduce a sense of scale into your picture.)
Of course, no one was ever peering at this single painting from that angle or any other. It was supposedly commissioned to hang in a grouping of paintings and this one happened to be hung to the left and high above a fireplace. The gentleman went on to tell me that modern art critics get themselves in all sorts of trouble about this perspective thing all the time. They critique the perspective without taking into account the specific commission circumstances and, at least in this guy’s eyes, end up looking silly.
This all ties in nicely to the Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare which I’m reading. The point of writing the book was that he understood that modern viewers of Shakespeare’s plays are no longer taught a tenth of the knowledge which Shakespeare’s audience brought into the theatre with them. This isn’t to say we’re taught nothing, just that we aren’t taught the same things anymore. He bridges the gap nicely.
On a Sherlockian note, according to its sign, Jan van Goyen’s painting, View of Rhenen, shows a distant view of the summer home/palace of the King and Queen of Bohemia. They don’t allow pictures in the gallery so you’re going to have to trust me on this one. A quick google hasn’t provided any backup for the claim. http://www.ago.net/jan-van-goyen I believe it was indicating the lower building to the left of the tower in the distance.
Last, but not least, I highly recommend anyone seek out this documentary about Picasso. It is fascinating. Here’s a clip on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkRS3wDg1xU - just a couple of minutes. I think they have it under the wrong name as Amazon has it as The Mystery of Picasso. Either way, it’s fantastic. We have the disc and I was reminded of how fabulous it is because of an exhibit last night.
I was told that Ruben’s The Massacre of the Innocents was painted with a specific viewpoint in mind - an actual, physical viewpoint - and so its perspective doesn’t look correct unless you view it from the far right and about 15-20 feet underneath it; apparently the ‘to the right’ part of this is more important (or at least more feasible under the circumstances) than the ‘it should be hanging way above your head’ aspect, because that’s the first bit of information I got. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents_%28Rubens%29
Now, to me there’s nothing all that much wrong with the painting viewed straight on. But then I moved to my right, and things sort of seemed to shift slightly; I figured this was half his being right and half power of suggestion. But then he threw in the part about the ‘you can’t hang it properly because a modern audience doesn’t want to peer up at a single painting hung way above their heads’ and when I started picturing what I’d be seeing if I were doing so, I saw the angle the painter had used from the bottom right corner to the top left corner and I just sort of gaped. The scene really is much more powerful if viewed that way; the viewer is immediately hit with the most violent part of the painting; the emotion of horror, then violence, and it all sort of disseminates from there, eventually into a sunset-streaked sky.
This was all helped, of course, by the fact that I had spent the entire day trying to make the lemon look larger or smaller, or the Toronto landmark in question look larger or smaller by manipulating the lemon, my camera, my hands, the zoom, and at one point was tempted to recruit the help of two complete strangers. I’d already dropped to my knees dozens of times that day. I almost did it in the gallery just to get closer to the full effect. I sort of wish I had. (Incidentally, I recommend always travelling with a lemon. It not only provides a useful educational tool for perspective, but it can also allow you to instantly introduce a sense of scale into your picture.)
Of course, no one was ever peering at this single painting from that angle or any other. It was supposedly commissioned to hang in a grouping of paintings and this one happened to be hung to the left and high above a fireplace. The gentleman went on to tell me that modern art critics get themselves in all sorts of trouble about this perspective thing all the time. They critique the perspective without taking into account the specific commission circumstances and, at least in this guy’s eyes, end up looking silly.
This all ties in nicely to the Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare which I’m reading. The point of writing the book was that he understood that modern viewers of Shakespeare’s plays are no longer taught a tenth of the knowledge which Shakespeare’s audience brought into the theatre with them. This isn’t to say we’re taught nothing, just that we aren’t taught the same things anymore. He bridges the gap nicely.
On a Sherlockian note, according to its sign, Jan van Goyen’s painting, View of Rhenen, shows a distant view of the summer home/palace of the King and Queen of Bohemia. They don’t allow pictures in the gallery so you’re going to have to trust me on this one. A quick google hasn’t provided any backup for the claim. http://www.ago.net/jan-van-goyen I believe it was indicating the lower building to the left of the tower in the distance.
Last, but not least, I highly recommend anyone seek out this documentary about Picasso. It is fascinating. Here’s a clip on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkRS3wDg1xU - just a couple of minutes. I think they have it under the wrong name as Amazon has it as The Mystery of Picasso. Either way, it’s fantastic. We have the disc and I was reminded of how fabulous it is because of an exhibit last night.
