In this manner, Rembrandt draws upon tenebrous, casting shadows to dramatist an emotion in the painting but differs from Carving by doing o in a subtle manner rather than striking contrast. Whereas Carving may have used finer lines to distinguish the portrait from the background, Rembrandt blurs the dark-light contrast so that the portrait emerges into focus just as it would in one’s line of vision. 10. 2 The introduction of Module 10 gives you a brief explanation of the positive effects of a free art market.
What might be the down side to such a system? Why would some artists have preferred to work tort as established patron such as the Church or Monarchy? Artistically, in my opinion, there is no down-side to a free market. Again, some additional “positives” include the ability for anyone to follow their passion, art, in whichever shape and form they viewed it The notion of a free art market squanders judgments; constraints of right and wrong, good and bad, and “true talent” or “real are dissipate.
One can deduce the red dot in the middle off blank white canvas is just as much art as any of Van Sago’s masterpieces; after all art is in the eye Of the beholder, right? The downsides may include economic and professional effects. The economic downside is two-fold. First, artists may have to work harder to sell a piece cause the availability Of art is widespread, thus creating stiff competition. Second, art in the traditional sense loses its value. No longer are a few art pieces available to the well-to-do but a montage of art is available to most anyone.
Professionally, it may become a less coveted talented now that anyone can put their artwork on the market. Previously commissioned artists may have short- lived careers. And artists have to create a niche in order to standout amongst a sea of painters. Thus, it is reasonable to think that some artists (mostly those accustomed to be noninsured the select and talented few” would prefer to work for an established patron. This type of work brings economic stability and professional prestige. 11. 1 What’s going on in Frontward’s painting The Swing?
Describe the subject matter and mood. How does this image depart from the type of subject matter and stylistic characteristics we have seen in earlier artistic movements such as the Renaissance and Baroque? Frontward’s painting The Swing was a blueprint of Parisian life for the female aristocrat as portrayed by prominent male artists, It seemingly celebrates the aperture tot the regiment elite imposed by Louis XIV. A women swinging relaxed and playful, she is comfortable in the attention she attracts from her male suitors.
Color and motion creates the female as a magnetized force. The TNT men frolic at her feet, literally and figuratively. This style is a departure from previous periods that focused their themes on religious and moral subjects, even past secular painting conveyed a moralistic opinions In this painting we witness a care-tree, playful lifestyle; whereby the female became the ultimate *host” in this artistic period. Again the pastel color accompanied by the sway of he dress creates a softer form than is witnessed in Renaissance and Baroque art.
Rococo style artists tended to use softer pastel colors and loose brush strokes to dramatist the fantasy-like lifestyle rather than primary colors, bold brush strokes, and clear lines expressed by Baroque artists. Despite the Obvious technical artistic difference, Frontward’s work was very similar to all and any Other artists. He painted What he “saw’ and/or perceived. 1 1. 2 until recently feminist historians have tended to give female artists like Veggie-Lubber a hard time for only painting images of women and children. Why o you think these artists chose these subjects?
Why do you suppose historians have had to rethink their critique of these women? Artists such as Veggie-Lubber perhaps chose to primarily paint women and children because these subjects were a great muse. It was an opportunity to paint “her story”, Similar to men that painted what they knew, women did the same; it is no different. Also, perhaps these women chose to create a niche in such a male dominated profession, whereby women and children could finally come into focus as seen through the female perspective. Veggie-Lubber, in her self-portrait, may be interpreted as a satire.
Indeed Veggie-Lubber’s painting was a departure from the Rococo style which was described as superficial “eye-candy’ and embodied the characteristics akin to the conversations held in salons by female aristocracy – “an art based on practiced with and flattery rather than sincerity’. In fact, her painting avgas a power move to see the female from the feminist perspective ? independent and with/of substance. In my opinion, historians’ interpretations Of any art, event, person, etcetera is ever-evolving. Thus it is no surprise, to me, that some may have had to rethink their critiques Of female artists during this period.
Historians are human. Ultimately, their interpretations are cultivated by many variables, including background, circumstance, influence, and knowledge. After all, history itself is fluid. More specifically, the profession of historian was also a male dominated profession. Thus it is not surprising, that a focus on women and children in art painted in a manner other than submissive and innocent would be critiqued, Veggie-Lubber, in her self-portrait, portrayed a progressive woman, an iconic image that challenged the typical perception of women, This notion threatened the male position as it had been upheld tort so long.