#painting analysis

[recolored-classics]

The Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog (1818) by Caspar David Friedrich

[meisterdrucke]

Two women. Blue silence. In "The Sacred Hour", Ferdinand Hodler places two almost identical figures side by side, dressed in deep blue robes. Their calm poses and quiet symmetry create a feeling of stillness that seems to exist outside of time. The small red flowers around them are easy to miss, but they add a gentle contrast that makes the peaceful scene feel quietly extraordinary. Quelle: meisterdrucke.com

[sincerelyirina]

Can’t Keep Reaching

[daisywrites-stuff]

The Two Fridas and Us (2019)

hey peeps.

so i was looking at the two fridas (frida kahlo) and it reminded me a lot of the 2019 jordan peele film us.

the way i interpret this painting is the frida in the white dress has her heart "open." literally, we can see inside it and figuratively, she's vulnerable and open to trusting others. through the veins in her heart she's tethered (get it, 'tethered?') to the other frida, which is another part of herself. that frida's heart is closed, literally we can't see inside it and figuratively, she's closed off to vulnerability and other people. the frida in the white dress cuts her veins with scissors (scissors!) and breaks the connection ('untethers!') herself from the other frida. to me, this could be because she needs to cut herself off from the other frida so both fridas can have what they want without holding each other back.

so this just screamed us to me. in us, the people above ground are mirrored by people living in tunnels underground. they're called the tethered. their lives are fully controlled by the real people above ground (they're a government experiment but that part isn't really important for this analysis), they are forever tethered together. BUT the tethered are angry at this (and honestly rightfully so, their lives suck) and they decide to come out of hiding and take revenge. they dress in red and carry scissors.

i want to talk about the scissors because that's what stood out to me the most and connects to the way the frida's are connected (tethered). in the film, the scissors represent unity for the tethered. they carry the scissors and make paper doll chains which represents the unity that the tethered feel towards each other (according to screenrant). at the end of the movie, the tethered woman (who is actually not originally tethered but besides the point for this analysis) cuts the paper dolls, slicing them apart.

now, traditionally scissors can represent cutting ties with something or someone. so when the tethered woman cuts the paper dolls, she is cutting ties with the real woman (who was originally tethered but for simplicity we are deciding that that is besides the point for this analysis). the tethered woman and real woman are mirrors of each other. the real woman has the life that the tethered woman always wanted. the tethered woman wants what the real woman has, the ability to make decisions. in order for her to do that, she needs to cut the tie because the real woman was holding her back.

the idea that to stop the real woman from holding her back, the tethered has to cut the tie really stood out to me because it seems like this painting seems to have the same theme. the fridas need to untether themselves from each other to achieve what they want to achieve (whatever that may be) without holding each other back.

thought this was interesting.

[lbanksart]

The Goldfinch, 1654 - Carel Fabritius - (Art History, lesson 3)

My fascination with the Goldfinch began after reading Donna Tartt’s captivating novel, ‘The Golfinch’, based on the history of one of Fabritius’ only surviving artworks. It is believed by a number of art historians that the original 1654 painting was involved in an explosion the same year it was signed, tragically killing Carel Fabritius and destroying many of his accompanying pieces, (hence the reference to a terrorist attack in the novel, alluding to the original explosion in which the painting was retrieved).

Fabritius worked temporarily as a student for Rembrandt Van Rijn in 1641 and thus, many elements of his early work reflect Rembrandt’s signature style of striking tonal highlights in amongst inexplicably dark shadows. Likewise, this influence is portrayed in the glowing golden tail feather of the goldfinch (as shown above), set apart from the dark shadows of the chained bird in the background. Furthermore, the use of trompe-l’œl oil paint allows for the definitive contrast between defined brush strokes and soft details, as seen in the delicate mark making of the chain against the harsh brushstrokes of the overbearing shadows.

Nonetheless, The Goldfinch was seen as rather an unusual subject for the Dutch Golden Age, due to the simplicity of its composition and lack of focus on neither portraiture nor still life- both common subjects of the time. However, the warm tones and dulled saturation created over time by the oil paints convey the sense that this piece was of its time, due to the fact that cooler tones were very rarely used. This, combined with the artists ability to layer textured brush strokes, gives the piece an almost three-dimensional effect, bringing this common pet to life in a rather charming way.

As a Dutch Baroque painter in the mid sixteen hundreds, Fabritius was inclined to only use paints available to him. In the 15th century, linseed oil began to replace egg tempura as a medium as it dried more slowly and was consequently easier to manipulate and work into. Oil colours allowed renaissance artists and later, baroque painters, to expand the effects of colour and explore realism in a new light. As shown in the images above, Fabritius payed close attention to the correct placement of shadows and highlights and made a conscious effort to capture the character and expression of the subject to create a sense of realism- while simultaneously stepping away from the minute brush strokes and extensive detail often used by renaissance and pre-raphelite painters.

[tiktoksinspo]

[ladyghouls]

Gustav Klimt’s “The Kiss”

I made a twatter post about this, but it was prompted by some Klimt inspired fanart i saw on tumblr, so i’ll explain here too. 

The Kiss is not a painting about a couple in love. It’s a painting about lack of consent, about reading body language, about a power imbalance between the man and woman. And she’s losing. 

The man hovers over her and grips her face and chin tightly, her neck bent in an uncomfortable and forced angle. She is not smiling. She is on her knees, while he is literally surrounding her. A sheer drop cliff is at her feet behind her, and the man in front of her: she has nowhere to go, she is trapped. 

I always felt weird looking at this painting, and now that I’m older I know why. It’s not a painting about love, it’s a painting about a woman struggling against a man who prevents her from escaping him by literally holding her head forcefully as he kisses her. She is turned away, she does not want it. 

I feel I’m decent at reading body language, and this is what I see. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it is a couple in love. But Klimt was a complicated artist, and his paintings can be very dense thematically...but the painting still makes me uncomfortable. 

So when I see renditions or fanart or other interpretations of canon romantically involved characters within the context of this painting, it just feels wrong and looks wrong. 

Me, an art history minor in college and an artist for literally my entire life, to you, the reader. Just something to consider. 

[anotherconservator]

When there is no museologist around and you are suddenly chosen to do an analysis of a painting.... hahahaha