|
Patrick Lawrence
|
 |
« on: May 12, 2010, 12:27:41 AM » |
|
Hey gang this is the official thread for the new art history section of the art course. You can see info about it on the blog and in the art course info section of the blog.
We are starting off talking about the direction of the art history class and Ernest Meissonier. This covers the Introduction to the Course and Lesson A.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
michellega
|
|
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2010, 06:52:57 PM » |
|
sounds good. Gonna take a look ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ArtPhotoFilm.com
|
|
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2010, 06:52:57 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Lawrence
|
|
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2010, 06:55:21 PM » |
|
OK take a look when you get a chance and then we can talk about it some.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
michellega
|
|
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2010, 07:13:51 PM » |
|
First off, the first link didn`t work. Other than that, It was really well written. gonna check out his stuff now ^_^ So are you going to post discussion questions to be answered or something like that? Or give a general topic to start with?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Lawrence
|
|
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2010, 07:25:27 PM » |
|
Hmm checked the first 3 links but they all seemed to work. As for a topic I want to explore the change in idea of art of the 19th century. Because that is as mentioned where art changed it directions. We can talk about the good and bad points of the Academic Art of the time and the rebellion against it. And if the rebellion was correct. And if it went to far in the end or just far enough etc. That is why I chose Ernest Meissonier he right in the middle of all of it. Academic Art - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_art |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
michellega
|
|
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2010, 07:35:52 PM » |
|
Sorry, the link on the art course thread (first one of the history post) won`t work for me for some reason. I have to go to the second one, then to a previous post to see the first one.
Also, the ARC link didn`t work for me as welll--said error and I had to search for him.
It is interesting that they felt that Meissonier would be one of the ones to withstand the test of time. I agree that he was very good. I find it interesting that he disliked religious art--or at least didn`t like to paint it. Prior to this major shift in art, religious art was the dominate form. It really shows not just a break in style, but a huge break in theme.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Lawrence
|
|
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2010, 07:57:10 PM » |
|
OK thanks should work now.
Where is the ARC link?
Also what does not come across in his images are the size. There is one at the art museum in Dallas I tracked down. And it is a tiny canvas with great detail on it. Most of the other paintings you will be looking at are much much larger paintings.
And your right in that by his time painting about religion and ceased to be the main theme. Its also interesting that they were constantly talking about what were the best themes and styles in art.
By the way also remember this was a time of violent political change. And many times the artists views on art have to do with his wider views of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
michellega
|
|
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2010, 08:15:47 PM » |
|
This is the main page for Meissonier http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/artist.php?artistid=84It was at the bottom of your blog on him...second to last paragraph, I think...small one. You spoke of the size in the blog. I guess I glanced over it because I have seen other works of art that have been done small or smaller with just as much detail (more recent, not historical.) Most artists reflect the wider views of the world around them--at least, that is what I like to think. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Lawrence
|
|
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2010, 08:25:26 PM » |
|
Is that the art lesson blog post or the featured artist blog post on him?
For me I have not seen anything with the same level of detail and accuracy in the same size. Unless you count digital and I do not since its not really the same game.
Not sure thats true about them reflecting the wider world. That is part of the romantized history of the early modern artists. No one liked their work. Not the public or critics or art establishment.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Lawrence
|
|
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2010, 08:26:12 PM » |
|
As a side note do not take anything is these art discussion personally. As it is very much like talking about polotics haha.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Lawrence
|
|
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2010, 08:31:05 PM » |
|
By the way as for a critic of Ernest Meissonier. I think many times he lost the bigger picture while focusing on the details. So he composition was rather bland some times or did not work well.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
michellega
|
|
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2010, 08:38:44 PM » |
|
I never take anything to heart on the net ^_^
Looking at some of his work, I think they are amazingly well done. But you are right--the composition was something of a "it`s been done lots of times before" feel to it.
I am going to have to look at the course again to see...I think it was the first disccussion, not the blog..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Lawrence
|
|
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2010, 08:59:26 PM » |
|
Ahh OK the address must have changed when they redid the site.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Lawrence
|
|
« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2010, 09:28:25 PM » |
|
Was looking at something rather interesting. The wikipedia is much like the propganda at colleges today. It skips over the biggest part of the work of the 19th century. It mentions the painters from early in the century like Ingres then shows and mentions mainly the ones thought of as for runners to modern art. It also mentions "art for art's sake" so I will have to talk about that idea soon. But its worth a look as it gives you a quick overview of what came before and after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_painting |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
