Early Modern

Here we have Thomas Hart Benton’s Approaching Storm. It is a lithograph completed in 1938 most likely in Kansas City. There is no specific information about where it was done but at the time Benton was teaching at the Kansas City Art Institute. I choose this work for two main reasons. First, Benton is one of the only artists of the period that did not completely dive into abstract art. Second, I think it shows very well how European art radically changed due to the war, while at the same time American art remained largely unchanged. At the point that this work was completed, Europe had already undergone all of the variations of abstract art leading up to the second World War. Dada had been around for two decades, surrealism had appeared and spread shortly after, and by the time Benton really started contributing to the art world he was one of the only traditional artists left.

The work itself describes perfectly how the rest of the world was undergoing radical change while life in America was largely untouched. The farmer is out working his fields the same as his family had for generations. I imagine that the storm coming is World War Two, which was about to explode. The extent of the danger ahead is not what it represents, rather it represents what had happened in the previous war. Any educated American would have been aware of the fact that there is no such thing as separatism, if the rest of the world goes to war then America would have no choice but to join.

This piece is a lithograph, a form of art that is not new but is helped considerably by the increases of technology at the time. The original work is done on a metal plate using two types of chemicals, one that absorbs water and one that rejects it. Once the original is complete, it allows an almost unlimited amount of near exact copies to be made. The plate is exposed to paper and ink with water which absorbs into the image exactly however the artist designed it; but as with any new way to mix art and technology, the result is only as good as the artist’s talent, regardless of how easy the technology makes it.

Impressionism

I can honestly say that I cannot stand Impressionism. The Romantic period started off great with Romantic art itself, then took a dive with Realism, and finally crashed with Impressionism. What do I see when I look at Impressionistic art? I see blurry pastels mashed together. The subject matter is ridiculous and frivilous, and the styles used convey nothing but confusion to the viewer. Claude Monet’s Houses of Paliament Series would be completely unidentifiable if not for the title; August Renoir’s Detail From Luncheon of Boating Party looks like it is melting; Pierre Bonnard’s Cote d’Azur looks like he smudged an afternoon away and then sold it to some idiotic rich collector.

The Post-Impressionists are not  much better. More melting landscapes and scenes without real subject matter. At least the Realists stated openly that their art was about meaningless farm work, the Impressionists claimed that their art shows the changing aspects of life. Except one problem, their art is about sitting next to a river, or empty landscapes so convoluted they look like the artist dropped his paint collection on a canvas by accident and smeared it around.

The art leading up to this period was steadily getting more complicated while slowly easing away from religion. The Romantic painters continued this evolution correctly, instead of capturing history or bible stories they moved on to the imagination but kept their paintings understandable to a general audience. Classical styles of art with Romantic subject matter was a great combination. Impressionism is nothing more than Rococo repackaged with a change in style. More nonsense for rich people to hang above their fire place while pretending to know what it means to all their guests that are rightly clueless about why this stuff ever became popular.

Mozart’s Don Giovanni

The work I choose from the Classical period is Mozart’s Don Giovanni. This opera was composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart with the libretto by Lorenzo La Ponte. It premiered in the Estates Theatre in Prague on October 29th 1787. Since the opera is quite long, I choose my favorite scene and embeded the video above. Despite the fact that Mozart himself categorized this work as opera buffa (comedy), the ending theme is quite serious. It is split into two acts. Don Giovanni is a Rake, a scouldrel and womanizer with no morals who pretty much does whatever he wants. He is supported by his servant Leporello, who despite being treated like complete garbage, never leaves his master’s side. In the first act, Don Giovanni attempts to sleep with the beautiful Donna Anna who refuses him. When she calls for help her father comes and challenges the Don to a duel, at which point the father is slain. This part is key to the end, while the rest of act one Don Giovanni runs wild, attempting to sleep with every woman who catches his eye. Married, unmarried, willing, unwilling, through lies and guile and outright force if he has to, nothing stops Don Giovanni in his conquests.

The second act follows with much more villiany from our main character. At one point Don Giovanni ends up in a cemetary hiding out from the various women scorned attempting to chase him down and just so happens to sit next to a statue of the Commendatore, the father slain in the first act. The statue speaks to Don Giovanni, who in disbelief of the situation and roguish fashion invites the staute to dine with him that evening. Surprisingly the statue accepts the invitation and promises to appear, at which point Don Giovanni runs off to continue his antics. Later in the evening when Don Giovanni is dining the statue does indeed appear at the door. The statue demands that Don Giovanni repent, which he of course does not, and then challenges the Don to take his hand if he is so brave. Don Giovanni accepts and the statue drags him down to hell for his sins. That last scene is the one that is posted above.

The theme of this opera shows that it is not aimed at the rich, like most art preceding the classical period. Rather it is aimed at the middle class. This is shown by the fact that in the end Don Giovanni is punished for his crimes. Remember the context of the times, if you were rich you did not go to jail. If a poor girl claimed rape against a rich man, the girl was laughed out of town, unless she happened to have a family memeber with more influence than the accused. This view of justice is something that is still present today. How many movie stars get off with community service when the average citizen goes directly to jail? Too many to count.

The opera itself is very complicated and very well done. Especially considering the fact that Mozart was the brain and composed the music, but La Ponte had to be no less of a genius in matching Mozart with the libretto. The best line in the opera is during the final scene when Don Giovanni attempts to get food for the statue, who replies “Those who dine on heavenly food have no need for earthly food”. Obviously meaning that statues do not eat, but also that Don Giovanni completely missed the whole point of life by spending all his time in bed. As evidence of just how great this opera truly is, I was completely surprised to find out that the script and the music were not written by the same person. When you listen to it you cannot tell.

The Fall of Phaeton

Here is Peter Paul Rubens The Fall of Phaeton. It was painted in Rome over two years, between 1604 and 1605. Before I critique this work, let me go over the myth which inspired it. Phaeton was a demi-god born of a human woman and Helios, the sun-god who drove the chariot of the sun across the sky every day. Phaeton found his father in Heaven and demanded that he be allowed to drive the chariot himself to prove he really is the son of a god. Eventually Helios gives in, and after putting a magic oil on Phaeton to make sure he is not burned, he hands over the reins to the chariot. The horses immediately sense a weak master at the helm and bolt. Phaeton is unable to control the chariot and after it burns a considerable amount of the earth Zeus sends a bolt of lightning down to destroy the chariot and Phaeton falls to his death.

Considering where this painting was completed, as well as the fact that Rubens was a known supporter of the counter reformation, I believe this work to not only be painted in the manner set forth by the Council of Trent but also to be a direct allegory of how the Protestant Church was seen by the Catholics. The Protestants, who were born of the Catholic Church, had grown restless and decided to snatch the reins from their elders; and I think that the Catholics firmly believed that after the Protestants lost control of themselves then God would send a bolt of lightning to deal with them and everything would return to normal.

The painting falls right into what was presented at the Council of Trent. It is clear, picking the most emotional moment of the myth, and relevant to what was happening in the world at the time. Not to mention the fact that I am sure the Catholics loved an ancient theme being tied in to their struggle against the Protestants. It was exciting enough to capture the attention of the lower classes, but still refined enough for the rich to appreciate it. Plus Rubens undoubtedly recieved much praise from the die hard Catholics who probably saw his numerous paintings of naked women as pornographic. The message as such is clear; don’t bite off more than you can swallow or you will be dealt with. This means you, evil Protestants, poisoning the minds of good Catholics everywhere.

Melencolia I

The above image is a print of Albrecht Durer’s Melencolia I. It was one his more famous prints, completed in 1514. He published it in Nuremberg after the conclusion of all but one of his trips around Europe, meaning that whatever he specifically had to say in this work was the result of his conclusions and not youthful illusions. There is almost no information about his personal life at the time, so the interpretation can only be done on the print itself. I believe that Durer was influenced significantly by Humanism in his work, and this work in particular. Based off  the fact that in one of his self-portraits he shows himself as an almost Christ like figure (1500 no title) I believe that the man in this print is himself. The Humanism aspect is blatant in that, if it is himself, then the wings signify that he believes on some  level that he is almost holy in his creation of art. The other Humanist symbols are those of mathematics, time, and the scale (balance and justice) on the wall of the building.

My specific interpretation is that he is trying to show what it is like to be a brilliant man. To have so many things that require specific attention that there is never enough time, and just when you think you cannot possibly do it all, a flash of brilliance strikes and all things must be pushed further aside to pursue it. The ladder implies house work to be done, along with the tools at the bottom. The barely touched rock shows an attempt at sculpting. The dog with ribs showing symbolizes never enough time to eat, or for personal things such as a pet. The comet and rainbow convey the flash of invention that comes when an artist gets an idea that he knows will lead to greatness. The hourglass is running out of time, just like the artist. The bell stands waiting for the artist to announce to the world a new masterpiece.

The average person will completely miss the importance of this work. Most men do not understand the process of brilliance, they just see the end result. This type of work does very well at representing what it is like to be in the Renaissance. There are no self help books to painting. There is no website to post work on. There is just a man sitting next to a shack in the woods, attempting the impossible task of creating art that will outlast the insane circumstances of his world.

Self Explanatory

Caspar David Friedrich – Wanderer Above The Sea Of Fog