Cable TV Ads and Online Video Volumes During Political Season

I know, I know it is political season, a couple of weeks before the 2012 Presidential Election, so we can expect just about anyone who is a celebrity, comedian, political pundit, or political operative to say just about anything on any cable network - granted, I get it, no naïve notions here. Still, what I find puzzling is how often the news media, especially the left-leaning media, puts on guests who all say the same thing, as if rehearsed and part of a broken record algorithmic speech synthesizer only changing the voice. What bothers me the most is they are saying things which "simple aren't so."

You see, I keep hearing this phrase; "Mitt Romney's economic plan just doesn't add up," explaining that the math is bad and it isn't possible. One recent Obama Campaign spokesperson in Florida stated; "the math is missing, the numbers do not add up."

There is no missing math, it's that the Obama team can't count on new jobs in their proposal or in their own economic record - thus, believe that no one else can create jobs either. But Obama is running his team as socialists might, whereas, Romney is a free-market capitalist, and there is a big difference in how those economic philosophies do math. Why just look at Europe to see where Obama is taking America.

That surely doesn't add up. You see, Romney's plan will work to streamline and reduce small business regulations and that will create jobs, millions of them, meaning more employees paying into the system - more government revenue - why can't the socialists get that? Good question. The answer is simple; because these socialist left-leaners don't get it and have never run a business.

Is this the only thing that is bothering me with regards to this election? Hardly, but let me give you another way the media is assisting Obama in his reelection. Recently, I noted when watching NBC TV videos online, political speeches one after another, I noted the volume change when it was Obama or Joe Biden giving the speech and then when Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan was speaking the volume went down to a lower level on the video. Is it favoritism, random, or planned to give the democrats a boost? Well, I am not a conspiracy theorist but at this point I would believe it to be the latter.

Do you think that the audio mixers or sound bite editors are always ethical? Remember the Trevor Martin case where they left out parts of the 9-11 call? Why? Simple, better ratings, stir controversy, make a political statement and then cash in on all the sound and fury - the media is known for this (cite: Don Henley's song; Dirty Laundry).

Why is all this so serious when it comes to down to the wire during election time you ask? Because this is about the future of our country, and it should be up to the people, not decided by media trickery. A slight modification in search engine, or online news results of only a few percentage points of positive news stories of a given candidate over the other for instance could be enough to swing a close election - which could change the history of the world - and change the United States of America forever. It's serious. Please consider all this and think on it.

Did The News Media Sell Their Souls For $100s of Millions in Political Ads?

The publishing industry has certainly seen better days, especially the newspaper sector. It seems as if the newspaper industry did get a reprieve during the 2008 elections, as the amount of political ads and dollars coming into advertising help stave off the potentially eventuality of their demise. Many high-tech corporate leaders in the information age have said that eventually the newspapers will be dead, and although no one knows when that date might be, the online venues have certainly taken their toll.

The concept of pay walls has worked for some of the leading newspapers, but it certainly isn't working for everyone. The advent of mobile devices increases the number of potential advertising imprintations digitally, but those ads sell for quite a bit less. Is this along with the pay walls enough to keep the newspaper publishing industry in business? Is print really dead, or dying on the vine you ask?

Well, I have some thoughts on all of this after watching the 2012 general elections in the United States. It seems that although the newspaper sector did provide lots of political ads, they also followed up with editorial content often promoting a certain candidate on one side of the political spectrum over another. This makes sense because if one political side is advertising huge amounts of dollars, it behooves that publication to say nice things about them in the news articles.

Unfortunately in doing so and being partisan it has caused people to lack the credibility of the news media. So whereas they made hundreds of millions of dollars, they also were busy trashing their credibility.

There is a decent research paper you might like to read on this topic of media street credibility worthy of mention; "The Credibility of Newspapers, Television News, and Online News," by Rasha A. Abdulla, Bruce Garrison, Michael Salwen, Paul Driscoll, and Denise Casey. This paper took a survey in 2002 of various adult media consumers based on their perception of credibility of the news. One has to ask a decade later if things are better or worse today - I'd have to say much worse.

There is an old saying that goes something like this; you can believe none of what you hear, half of what you read, and most of what you see. Today the average consumer believes the credibility of their printed newspaper to be about 28%, and that would be well under; half of what they read, in that case. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

Media and Politics - What Is the Role of Media in Politics?

There has been some rumbling in the UK media about the plight of a US media company over what a British media company did. Now both of these companies do share the same parent company, and there has not been any evidence that the media company, which is based in the US, did anything wrong. That has not stopped British liberals from salivating over the demise of a media empire, an empire that could be said donates millions of dollars to the very causes they support. It just so happens that the media empire covers the news of the day from a perspective that they do not agree with. In fact the owner of the company does not seem to agree with the news his company produces, if campaign donations are an indicator of his political leanings.

You might be asking yourself what this all about and if you are American, it would be understandable. Because lets face it, British scandals do not compete well with the next missing blonde on national TV or cable news channels. The scandal in question is the News of the World alleged hacking of cell phones in Britain and apparently 9/11 families now. Which is quite a serious charge and as we know with Liberals it is the seriousness of the charge that matters, not the evidence.

So the story goes that the British paper, News of the World, hacked a murder victim's cell phone, hacked the cell phones of the 7/7 terrorists and even the phones of the royal family. Of course all of this is still being investigated and Rupert Murdoch has stated that it did not happen, he even said that his company investigated the issue when it first came up and found nothing. That has not stopped the British Parliament from trying to bring down News of the World though and Scotland yard is investigating the allegations.

All of this has not stopped the media in the UK and even in some European countries from writing sensationalized stories on the empire that Rupert built. This story is nothing more than red meat for the a demoralized Democrat base that does not have much to be excited about with their hope and change from 2008. And what is a little help from the Liberals on the other side of the pond?

Many of them are saying that broadcasting laws in the US are set in such a way that Fox News could lose its license because of the actions of another part of the parent companies media outlets. The problem is that the laws they are saying could lead to this, rest solely on Rupert Murdoch's involvement in the scandal. Because the law says that a license cannot be given to a owner of questionable character. So is it the law that a CEO or Owner is responsible for what the employees do? Even though there has not been any conclusive evidence to pin on said employees?

Looking over the US laws, it seems that they would need to prove that the order to hack the phones came from Murdoch himself, and barring that there is not much more that can be done to Murdoch or even Fox News. Granted if the FBI does find something tying Fox News to the hacking of 9/11 families, well that would spell doom for the network. And it would lose a lot of creditability with the very people they aim to put in chairs and on couches night after night.

So far there is not even evidence that supports bringing charges against News of the world in the UK, let alone speculation over whether or not Fox news will be allowed to broadcast in the US any longer.

Cecilia Beaux

“Miss Beaux is not only the greatest woman painter, but the best that has ever lived.”
―William Merritt Chase, 1899

Cecelia Beaux (1855-1942) was born in Philadelphia and began taking drawing lessons at sixteen from Catherine Ann Drinker.  She studied at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts from 1877-1879 and later returned to teach there, when she was studying at PAFA the painter Thomas Eakins was teaching at the school.   

Dorothea and Francesca, Cecilia Beaux, 1898, Art Institute of Chicago

In 1888 Beaux made the first of several trips to Europe and in France she worked at the Académie Juilen under the artist Bouguereau.  Her father was French and the work that she saw in Europe and especially in France, both Old Masters and the new Impressionist style, strongly affected her own work.   An example of her loose brushwork and interest in light and color can be seen in the work above, Dorothea and Francesca, which is a double portrait of the daughters of a patron.  The girls are posed unconventionally, while they practice dancing and their white dress and sash are filled with a variety of colors that add highlights and shadows.

Ernesta (Child with Nurse), Cecilia Beaux, 1894, Metropolitan Museum of Art

Beaux's painting above of her two year old niece, Ernesta Drinker, also shows the influence of the French Impressionists and other American painters working in Paris such as Mary Cassatt.  In addition to a similar brushwork and use of color as in Dorothea and Francesca, Beaux's unusual portrait crops the second subject in a way reminiscent of the work of Degas.  This painting was one of several that was shown in the French annual Salon of 1896.

By 1900 Cecilia Beaux was living in New York and was a well-established portrait painter, she was commissioned to paint many well known individuals.  Along with John Singer Sargent, Beaux is known as one of the most important American portrait painters of the late 19th and early 20th century.

Henry Sturgis Drinker (Manwith the Cat) Cecelia Beaux, 1898,  Smithsonian American Art Museum

The sitter for this portrait, Henry Sturgis Drinker, was Beaux's brother-in-law (Ernesta's father), a railroad executive and president of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. 

According to the exhibition label of this work at the  Smithsonian American Art Museum:

“Beaux was a fiercely independent woman who lived well, kept handsome lovers, and had a will of iron. At a time when few women could, she carved out a career for herself as a portraitist, and was thought to rival John Singer Sargent.” 

During her lifetime Beaux had fourteen one-woman shows and won numerous prizes, she was the first female artist to teach at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. 

Rembrandt, Van Dyck, Gainsborough: The Treasures of Kenwood House

Rembrandt, Van Dyck, Gainsborough: The Treasures of Kenwood House, London was a touring exhibit that showed at the Seattle Art Museum.  

While the Kenwood House museum in London was closed for renovations their wonderful collection is traveling around the United States.1  There was a mix of 17th century Dutch and Flemish painting including work by Rembrandt, Frans Hals, Anthony Van Dyck, Ferdinand Bol and  Aelbert Cuyp and 18th century painters such as Thomas Gainsborough, Joshua Reynolds, Francesco Guardi and George Romney.
  
Let's look at the 17th century Dutch and Flemish painting first. The highlight of the exhibit is this Rembrandt self-portrait from 1665 when the artist was 59 years old.  Rembrandt painted his portrait more than 60 times throughout his life.  Of all of his self-portraits this is the largest, measuring 45 3/4" x 38 1/4".  It is a life sized image and breathtaking to see in person.  Rembrandt portrayed himself in a variety of ways, with different angles, moods and costumes. In this he shows himself as a painter holding the tools of his trade.  It is as if we, the viewer, have interrupted him at work in his studio. It was his trademark to focus on the face and leave other areas of the painting unfinished. It is a trick that works well, your eye will fill in the rest including textures (the fur of his collar) and missing details (such as the hand holding the brushes and palate).
 



Portrait of the Artist, ca. 1665, Rembrandt van Rijn, Kenwood House, London
English Heritage; Iveagh Bequest, 1927

No artist made as much of an impact on the Golden Age of Dutch painting as Rembrandt, in his early twenties he had already opened his own studio in Leiden and started taking students (such as Gerritt Dou). Soon after Rembrandt moved to Amsterdam and began a very successful career. His studio saw a steady stream of commissions and he took dozens of private students. However he had his share of true tragedies: Rembrandt and his wife Saskia had three children who did not live past infancy, only their son Titus who was born in 1641 lived to adulthood. Sadly Saskia died several months after the birth of Titus in 1642. Due to the difficulty in his personal life Rembrandt struggled professionally and artistically as well in the 1640's. His style of painting which was once considered revolutionary was now seen as old-fashioned.

However in the 1650's Rembrandt's career had a resurgence and he continued his painting with a renewed vigor.  He now lived with Hendrikje Stoffels with whom he had another child. He was once again a well respected artist and getting many commissions.

By the time he painted the Kenwood self-portrait in 1665 Rembrandt's successful decades long career was winding down.  The artist looks both confident and world weary in this painting.  Much has been made over the two half circles, especially as most of his portraits had a darkened background.  Are they part of a painting he is currently working on? Does he include them to balance the composition? Is there a specific meaning in these shapes?  The gallery text suggests they tie to the famous "O" that Giotto could make without measuring that art historian Giorgio Vasari wrote about. I think the mystery of the shapes adds to both the composition and impact of the work.

After seeing this painting I plan to devote a future blog post to comparing and constrasting many of the different self-portraits that Rembrandt painted over the course of his life.  I have many to choose from, in fact SAM has printed small free booklets which highlight seven of them. Make sure to pick one up in the gallery.
 

View of Dordrecht, ca. 1655, Aelbert Cuyp, Kenwood House, London

English Heritage; Iveagh Bequest, 1927

When this was painted in the mid-17th century, landscapes, seascapes and cityscapes were painted commonly for the middle class to purchase and seen as a source of Dutch pride. The harbor scenes highlighted the shipping industry that was the source of trade and commerce. Aelbert Cuyp was a well known landscape painter, I always associate him with his landscapes which include cows. This painting greets you as you enter the exhibit and it was one of my favorites, I think it is an interesting hybrid of cityscape and seascape.  Cuyp created this with a strong sense of atmospheric perspective.

Portrait of Pieter van den Broecke, 1663, Frans Hals, Kenwood House, London

English Heritage; Iveagh Bequest, 1927

Frans Hals (1580-1666) lived and worked in Haarlem and was a masters in the “Golden Age” of Dutch painting, and is best known for his lively portraiture. His style was revolutionary in that his subjects are often shown smiling and laughing.  Portraiture nearly always showed a serious subject, even when the subject was smiling, such as in Leonardo's Mona Lisa, the smile was very slight.  Smiling had connotations of idiocy or lunacy however Hals managed to convey an atmosphere of merriment and liveliness.  His loose brushwork and painterly style added to the feeling of his sitter's vibrancy. 

The Seattle Art Museum has put together a lot of information on the works in this exhibit including facts on many of the  in the portraits.  The following text is taken from their website and helps us to better understand the individual portrayed in this painting, Pieter van den Broecke: 

"The Dutch seaman Pieter van den Broecke began his career trading fabrics in West Africa. He eventually took over a company that dominated the Dutch trade in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. In this portrait by Frans Hals, he’s 48 years old and wearing a gold chain that marks his 17 years of service with the Dutch East India Company. He and the artist were close friends."2

Portrait of Mary, Countess of Howe, 1764, Thomas Gainsborough, Kenwood House, London

English Heritage; Iveagh Bequest, 1927

Lord Iveagh collected all of the work at Kenwood in three years, he never actually lived at the manor but wanted to fit in with English aristocracy and amass a number of paintings that fit in with traditional taste.  The collection is nearly half art from the Dutch Golden Age of the 17th century (with a few Flemish and Italian paintings included) and half 18th century British portraiture.  I will admit I am more drawn to the Dutch art and I don't always find 18th century British portraiture as interesting. However Kenwood has an extensive collection, there are many nice examples from Joshua Reynolds who was the head of the Royal Academy and also from the talented George Romney. 


I think my favorite painter from this era was Thomas Gainsborough who uses a relaxed approach and painterly style to capture the spirit of his subjects.  His work could be compared to Frans Hals in that sense. I really liked this one, the Countess of Howe.  I love the vibrant colors he used, the rich pink tones in her dress seem to be echoed in the sunset behind her.  I have always enjoyed the trees and the skies that Gainsborough paints in the background for each of his portraits.  With the Countess of Howe, I think he captures the spirit on an intelligent woman.  However her feet seem to be oddly floating beneath her and the ground slopes towards us, the bottom part of the painting is a bit distracting.

Again the following text is taken from their website and helps us to better understand Portrait of Mary, Countess of Howe:

"Countess Howe was actually an aristocrat by marriage and not by birth. So technically the painting should be called “Lady Howe.” But Mary Hartopp became a countess after her military husband became an earl. The couple was vacationing in Bath when they asked Gainsborough to paint each of them. 

Gainsborough went all out painting her in pink silk and ruffles standing outdoors on some estate. She was, of course, posed inside Gainsborough’s studio but that landscape suggests the countess as both aristocrat and a landowner."3


European Masters: The Treasures of Seattle is an exhibit which is running concurrently at the Seattle Art Museum and is comprised of 34 privately owned paintings.  This assortment of Old Master works is really impressive and fills several galleries.

The Seattle Art Museum website says of this exhibit:

"The paired exhibitions will give visitors the opportunity to observe different approaches to collecting, the history of taste, and how the market has changed since Lord Iveagh began to form his collection in 1887. Most importantly, our visitors will have the chance to see exceptional works of art from right here in Seattle, which, until this moment, has largely overlooked the art of Europe. Featured artists include Vittore Carpaccio, Francisco de Zurbarán, J.A.D. Ingres, Eugène Delacroix, and Frans Hals."

 Still Life with a Tankard, plate of Oysters and Glasses on a Table, Willem Claesz Heda, 1636

Privately owned collection (image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

The work in these galleries is from the early 16th through 18th century, I was suprised to see a small Pontormo alongside a beautiful Carpaccio Madonna and Child with an exquisite carved wooden tabernacle frame.  Seeing famous 16th century Italian paintings from private collections made me curious about the provenance of the works. Who owns these now? A few owners were listed but most weren't.  Who purchased them? How did each owner come to acquire them? 

I liked this exhibit as much if not more than the Kenwood House collection. I was able to find an image online of one of my favorite works, a beautiful early Dutch still-life by Willem Claesz Heda (above).  He painted many variations on this type of "breakfast still-life" and this is a really wonderful example, the textures, composition and palate he used all add to the overall visual effect.  I wrote about this type of art in an earlier post- History as Seen through the Dutch Still-Life. 

I was also pleased to see a still-life by another favorite of mine, a female painter from the late Italian Renaissance named Fede Galizia.  Galizia was from Milan and known for her exquisite still-lives and this was no exception.  

In addition to artists previously mentioned there was interesting work by: 

Ambrosius Bosschaert- an early Dutch floral still-life
Pillippe de Champaigne- a large scale Visitation scene with vivid colors
Elisabeth Vigée-Le Brun- a "tête d'expression" of a young woman done in pastel

There was a room dedicated to an artist unknown to me; 18th century French painter Martin Drölling (1752-1817) which contains five works from the same collector.  They included a lovely portrait of a young woman and a small copy of Elisabeth Vigée-Le Brun's portrait of Marie Antoinette painted in 1789, the year of the French Revolution.

All in all these two exhibits pair nicely together and give the viewer a wide range of painting to see from late Renaissance, through the Baroque and Rococo and even had some examples of Neoclassical art.  I have visited twice now, spending a quick visit on the night of the SAM Members Preview and nearly three hours on my second visit as I looked at, conversed about and took notes about the art.  Seeing as I really enjoy this art and won't get another chance to see these (especially the work from the private collections) I definitely plan to go back a few more times before it ends.

The exhibition is organized by the American Federation of Arts and English Heritage. It is supported by an indemnity from the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, with additional funding from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation. In-kind support is provided by Barbara and Richard S. Lane.

1. Exhibition Itinerary: 

Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (June 3–September 3, 2012)

Milwaukee Art Museum (October 12, 2012–January 13, 2013)

Seattle Art Museum (February 14–May 19, 2013)

Arkansas Arts Center (June 7–September 8, 2013).

 

2, 3.  Seattle Art Museum Website, "The Characters of Kenwood" http://seattleartmuseum.org/EuropeanMasters/characters.asp

Exhibit Guide
Bryant, Julius, Susan Jenkins and Walter Liedtke.Rembrandt, Van Dyck, Gainsborough: The Treasures of Kenwood House, London. American Federation of Arts (2012).

The Portraiture of Rosalba Carriera

The work of 18th century Venetian artist Rosalba Carriera (1665-1757) was quite influential upon portrait painters of the Rococo.  Rosalba was a portrait artist who worked in the relatively new medium of oil pastels. 

During the 18th century artists were beginning to experiment with this medium which was much faster than oil painting, however due to its more fragile nature, not as suitable for really large scale work. Pastels allowed the artist to combine the techniques of drawing with the effects of oil painting and they dried quickly.  This new medium was perfectly suited for creating preliminary sketches meant to be turned into larger paintings such as sketching landscapes out of doors.  When pastels were first invented few artists worked with them other than for preparatory sketches.

Portrait of Louis XV as Dauphin, Rosalba Carriera, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

As it turned out, oil pastels were also well suited for created a new vibrant style: the 18th century pastel portrait.  The soft edges and vivid colorful effects of pastel were perfectly matched to the taste at the time which was transitioning from the Baroque to the Rococo.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art writes of the medium:

“Pastels have always been praised for the freshness of their colors, at once both brilliant and subtle.”1

Perhaps the artist most famous for pastel portraits was the 18th century Venetian painter, Rosalba Carriera.  Rosalba worked nearly exclusively in pastels and portraiture and her work and reputation earned her an international following. 

Rosalba was highly regarded as a portrait painter and sought after by such figures as the young Louise XV, Cardinals, a Countess, other aristocrats and a variety of international travelers and artists.  She had a reputation for working quickly and being able to capture both a wonderful likeness and the personality of her subjects.

Gustavus Hamilton, Second Viscount Boyne, in Masquerade Costume, Rosalba Carriera, 1730–31, Metropolitan Museum of Art

Venice was a primary destination for anyone who took the "Grand Tour" of Europe, including aristocratic English travelers such as Gustavus Hamilton, pictured above.  It is interesting to note that he has chosen to wear a well known variation of the Venetian Carnival mask under his hat (the type of silver brimmed hat which was also worn during Carnival) in the portrait.  The portrait would then be a symbol for the time he spent in Venice and would represent that he was well traveled and steeped in local Venetian culture.  It became more than a portrait, it represented his status as an educated man who had lived abroad.  Rosalba's portrait doesn't focus on the costume, instead showing a sensitively painted work alive with color and texture.

Portrait of Faustina Bordoni Hasse, Rosalba Carriera, 1730’s, Ca’Rezzonico, Venice

Rosalba's subjects sought her out due to the flattering light that she cast each of them, using a luminous quality that captures each individual.  In her paintings she subtly changes from exacting details to soft highlights and from subdued backgrounds to areas of vivid color.  Her work transcended the use of pastel on paper to create a new and more engaging type of portrait than traditional oils. 

Rosalba's pastel portraits influenced a generation of artists from all over Europe who admired her style such as the French painter Maurice Quentin de La Tour and John Russell from England.

Self-portrait, Maurice Quentin de La Tour, c-1750-60, Musée de Picardie, Amiens

French artist Maurice Quentin de La Tour (1704-88) also worked exclusively in pastels.  He met Rosalba Carriera when she came to Paris in 1720 when he was still a teenager and apprenticed under Claude DuPouch.  After his apprenticeship ended he applied to join the French Royal Academy and was able to exhibit his work in the Salon.  While they had different styles and approaches to pastel, the viewer can see the influence of Rosalba's style in the rich tones and textures of his self-portrait pictured above.

Portrait of George Medley, John Russell, 1777

While Rosalba began her career in the Baroque age English painter John Russell (1745-1806) was working entirely during the Rococo.  While he was too young to have met Carriera personally, he was definitely influenced by her pastel portraits.  Russell too worked solely in pastels and even wrote a book on the medium.  There were several different approaches to using pastels and Russell preferred to blend his colors in a similar manner to Rosalba.  As she had painted the portraits of many English travelers, Russell was able to see her work in person and even owned a few of her portraits.

Rosalba Carriera painted hundreds of portraits, each created to show the nuances of her subject's personality.  Her style was known for its deep and vibrant colors and its rich textures.  Like many paintings reproductions do not do her work justice, they must be seen in person to be fully appreciated.  Rosalba truly transformed the medium of pastel and expanded its uses from a preparatory medium used to lay out more finished oil paintings to a finished product which was in high demand. 

The Metropolitan Museum of Art writes of pastels in the 18th century:

“Pastel, too, afforded the artist a richer interplay between medium and support than oils did. Pastel paintings were commonly executed on blue paper mounted on canvas, not only because this was the thickest paper available in the eighteenth century, but also because of the chromatic advantages it offered as the pigments of the pastel picked up and interacted with the blue background…They offer an invaluable insight into how such tonal complexity was worked up. Unlike oils, which can be mixed on a palette from nine or ten basic pigments, each tone requires a different stick of pastel, with artists making use of hundreds of crayons.”2

1 & 2- The Metropolitan Museum of Art Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History: The Eighteenth Century Pastel Portrait

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/papo/hd_papo.htm

 

What is Art?




Deliverance of Saint Peter, Raphael, 1514, fresco, Stanza di Eliodoro, Vatican, Rome

"What is art?"  This ages old question is often discussed and has widely varying answers.  We consider painting to be art as well as sculpture and architecture.  Opinions are more divided on the decorative arts such as pottery, textiles and stained glass. Art is sometimes the result of creativity and other times the result of political propaganda.  Art can be all of these things or none of them. 

A better question may be- can a single blog post successfully answer the question of what art is?  Let's look at some of the components involved in the creation of art through the ages.


I often begin art history lectures by stating: "Art is a reflection from the society that created it."  The values of a culture show through in art, when looking at any work of art the more you understand about the culture and society at the time, the more you will understand the art coming from it.  

When viewing art ask yourself several questions such as: 

• Who was in power when this was created? 
• How did they come into power? 
• Who commissioned this and what is known about them? 
• Who created it and what is known about them? 
• Where was this meant to be seen originally? 
• Why was this work of art commissioned and/or created?

For example in the above fresco by Raphael the Pope (Pope Julius II) was in power and as was the case with most popes he came into power after his predecessor died and he was elected into office by a council.  It was also Pope Julius II that commissioned this from the highly talented and sought after Renaissance painter Raphael.  This was in the Pope's private apartments where the general public was not allowed, today those apartments are part of the Vatican museums and hundreds of visitors see these frescoes daily. 

Here is a sampling of some objects which have been considered "art" let's ask what do they have in common and what separates them?

Pictured above from left:
Chartres Cathedral, northwest tower c. 1140,  west façade and southwest tower c. 1160-16th century

David, Michelangelo,1501-1504, Accademia Gallery, Florence, photo- © Rico Heil /public domain, via Wikimedia Commons  

Woman Holding a Balance, Johannes Vermeer, c. 1664, National Gallery of Art

Here we are comparing and contrasting a medieval French church, a larger than life Renaissance marble sculpture of a man and a rather small, realistic oil painting from the Dutch Baroque.  They were all created in different centuries from vastly different materials. These examples are all beautiful objects which express the creativity of the artist and they also all are expressions of Christianity and the religious faith of the creator. What else do these things have in common?  Can each of these be considered art?

Wall painting of Reindeer, Lascaux Cave, France, c-15,000 B.C.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines art as-
The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced

I agree with that description, whatever style, medium or use that objects of art have they are created with a combination of "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination."  Even as far back as the cave paintings from Prehistoric society that definition can be applied.

 Ixion, Jusepe de Ribera, 1630, Museo del Prado, Madrid

Today one may think of art as being created to be a beautiful object, but for millennium art was not created with the primary purpose in mind of being beautiful.  While often beautiful, the aesthetic value of the object was typically its secondary purpose.  Though many examples of art weren't beautiful at all and were meant to be purposefully ugly, grotesque, disturbing or frightening such as Ribera's work above.
 
What then was the primary purpose of a work of art? This is often very apparent such as art as a historic record, a form of propaganda for those in power or a way of spreading a message such as the message of Christianity to those who couldn't read.  

 In other instances the primary purpose of works of art are still debated and not known, such as the case for nearly all Prehistoric art.  Even later art can be difficult to interpret, the primary purpose of some art works may need the equivalent level of research of a Ph.D. thesis to decipher them.

Let's look at some examples of art with a specific primary purpose-

 
Pictured above from left:
Column of Marcus Aurelius, c-193 A.D., Rome, photo- © Matthias Kabel / public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Virgin Enthroned with Angels, Cimabue, c-1290-95, Louvre 

Bernardino Campi Painting Sofonisba Anguissola, Anguissola, late 1550's



In the first example we see a monumental column built during the Roman Empire, its primary purpose was that of political propaganda.  The images carved into the marble relief panels winding up the length of the column show a victorious military campaign fought by the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.


The second example is a panel which was created for Christian devotional purposes painted by the artist Cimabue in the late 13th century.  The final example is a clever type of self-portrait by the painter Sofonisba Anguissola.  She painted this to show her skill, cleverness and importance as an artist.

Symphony in White no 1: The White Girl - Portrait of Joanna Hiffernan,  

James Abbott McNeil Whistler, 1862, National Gallery of Art (Washington, D.C.)

The phrase "Art for art's sake." didn't come about until the late 19th century.  It refers to the creation of art to be a work of art as its primary purpose.  Artists such as the French Impressionists, Eduoard Manet and James Abbott McNeill Whistler subscribed to this idea and it is the root of artistic ideas in the 20th and 21st centuries.


What then of architecture or the decorative arts?  Are they too to be considered art?  There are many examples of both which feature prominently in art history books and courses.  

Pictured above from left:
"Il Duomo" Santa Maria del Fiore, dome by Brunelleschi, 1420-1436

Temple of Hephaestus in Athens, Greece, 449-415 BC, photo- © Sharon Mollerus / public domain, via Wikimedia Commons 

San Giorgio Maggiore, Andrea Palladio, Venice, 1566-1610


When I am teaching I always explain that if architecture weren't art then all buildings would look the same and would only be created to protect people from the elements. I have always strongly felt that architecture is art when it falls under the definition of "production of aesthetic objects."  

Meaning that not every structure ever created would be considered an art form, but those structures that transcend their primary purpose by also being aesthetic objects art are in fact art.  I apply the same idea to the decorative arts such as the Greek Amphora shown below.  

Not that every single piece of pottery, glass and textiles falls under the category of art, but again those that transcend their primary purpose, combining skill and creativity to become an object with aesthetic value are certainly to be considered art.

Greek Attic Amphora, 550-560 BC 

photo- © Jean-Pol GRANDMONT / public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

 

The 14th edition of Gardner's Art Through the Ages has an interesting way of describing the role of art in its opening paragraph:

“Except when referring to the modern academic discipline, people do not often juxtapose the words “art” and “history.”  They tend to think of history as the record and interpretation of past human actions, particularly social and political actions.  Most think of art, quite correctly, as part of the present- as something people can see and touch.  Of course, people cannot see or touch history’s vanished human events, but a visible, tangible artwork is a kind of persisting event.  One or more artists make it at a certain time and in a specific place, even if no one today knows just who, when, or why.  Although created in the past, an artwork continues to exist in the present, long surviving its times.”1

I agree with this statement and think that it is well phrased.  Works of art are visible manifestations of the cultures that they were created in.  In this way all the political and historic events that have led to 

 

What then blog readers is your definition of "art" and why do you think so?  I think the question can have many answers and I am interested in hearing them all.

 

 

1. Kleiner, Fred S. Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Global History. 14^th edition. New York: Wadsworth Publishing, 2012. p. 1.