Sign in or 

|
ktd0004 |
Latest page update: made by ktd0004
, Aug 1 2009, 4:34 PM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
No content added or deleted. - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| derekwhite | Group 4: flowchart or outline for #2 | 1 | Oct 7 2009, 11:00 AM EDT by Paigeme | ||
|
Thread started: Oct 6 2009, 10:41 AM EDT
Watch
Address question: "Money is important in the film. How did economic factors affect Dutch 17th century art.?"
1st...-research on Calvinism and how its practice and beliefs create a middle class or upper-middle class -did Calvinism lead the way for a capitalist society? 2nd...-How did the House of Orange come to power? -Who were they and what effects did they have on the economy of Holland? 3rd...Who was newly able to buy and sell commodities? Why was this important? -What commodities did the Dutch value? Where did these commodities come from? 4th...-What was the artists' role in this commodity driven society? What were artists commissioned by their patrons(with special emphasis on "The Nightwatch" painting and the militia-men depicted)? Also mention importance of guilds and their group paintings. 5th...Bring it all together and conclude with reasons this changed subject matter and who was depicted in 17th century art(new found pride in landscapes, commodities or objects of value in still-lifes, and upper middle class group portraiture). If there is anything anyone wants to add or change let me know. Okay? |
|||||
| mel0110 | Thread for Group 9: Ideas and questions part 1 | 1 | Sep 14 2009, 5:00 PM EDT by KBower | ||
|
Thread started: Sep 10 2009, 1:16 PM EDT
Watch
The signifigance and popularity of self portraits in Italian 17th century art?
In my studies thus far I have drawn from reading and research the rise in self portraiture from the beginnings of the 15th century through the 17th to be a display of social status and economic wealth for patrons. The wealthy were the subject of most of the commissioned portraiture by famous artists; in which they displayed their wealth, religious fervor, and social standing through symbolic iconography. The portraits commissioned by patrons greatly differ from self portraits being created by the leading artists of this era. Looking at self portraits rendered by Velasquez and Titian it is clear that the painters’ capture themse3lves eloquently dressed with all the trappings of nobility and profession either in the act of painting with all the finest implements or posed with iconographical images embodying him as a great artist. Thus we are faced with the portraits created by Artemisia Gentileschi in which she renders herself in the act of working and in her natural state as an artists. Previous to this particular portrait women were rendered as allegorical figures in art and were attributed to the fine arts in the guise of muses; upholding Greco and roman tradition of “personifying the arts” (Garrard 97). Portraiture done by female artist’s pre dating Gentileschi seems to be plagues by religious iconography or in the female artist is accompanied by another male.
2
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you?
Keyword tags:
have a great weekend Leslie
Jane and Krista
|
|||||
| mel0110 | part 2 | 0 | Sep 10 2009, 1:16 PM EDT by mel0110 | ||
|
Thread started: Sep 10 2009, 1:16 PM EDT
Watch
In looking at 16th century female artists the term virtuosa was coined by Vasari “a talented, attractive, and properly behaved woman” (Jacobs 159), this notion of virtuosa plays in to the male misogyny surrounding female artists. Female artists were to be first and foremost beautiful and secondly respectable and godly women. This leads the researcher to believe and question that before Gentileschi the field of female portraiture was limited to the allegorical personification of the arts and display of religious piousness. Gentileschi refutes all these stigmas by painting herself in the act of working in her place of work. We do not see what she is creating but are drawn to the intellectual aspects of the woman painter; as she embodies the female and the arts.
These are my initial thoughts. I am wondering and an planning on looking further in to Gentileschi’s other portraits of women. Were they all of her? If not what was their nature? Allegory? If anyone has any good information on this let me know!!! I am also planning on comparing one of Velazquez’s/Titian’s work to Gentileschi’s. |
|||||