The Colour of My Dreams: The Surrealist Revolution in Art

I recently visited Vancouver, B.C. where I saw the exhibit The Colour of My Dreams: The Surrealist Revolution in Art at the Vancouver Art Gallery.  It is a huge show and if you haven't seen it yet you have until the end of the month, it ends on Sunday, October 2.  There are hundreds of artworks by 80 artists in a wide variety of media.  If you are interested in Modern Art I definitely recommend this exhibit.

I am interested in all of the meanings behind Surrealism and know I have a lot to learn.  The exhibit is huge and brings Surrealist work together and borrows from dozens of museums and private collections. 

René Magritte, The Six Elements, 1929, oil on canvas
Philadelphia Museum of Art: The Louise and Walter Arensberg Collection, 1950
© Estate of René Magritte / SODRAC (2010)

There are paintings, videos, drawings (including several "exquisite corpse drawings") and sculptures.  The sculpture also includes many works from Canada's First Nations (known in America as Native Americans) which had a strong influence on Surrealism.  I hadn't realized this earlier but seeing the side by side comparison gave me a new appreciation for both types of art. 

Surrealism began in Europe in the 20's and the movement was influenced by a variety of things including-
-The studies of Freud and new ideas about psychoanalysis as well as dream analysis.
-The art of the Dada artists a decade earlier who used art to make sense or World War I (or use their "nonsense art" to show that the war didn't make sense).
-The Metaphysical art movement also about a decade earlier which was the first to explore the ideas of the unconscious.
-The idea that tapping into the unconscious and letting go of rational thought completely frees ones creativity.

        Joan Miró, Photo: This is the Colour of My Dreams, 1925, oil on canvas
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Pierre and Maria-Gaetana Matisse Collection, 2002
© Successió Miró/SODRAC (2011)
Image © The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource, NY

I will fully admit that I am not expert on the period, I have mostly been researching pre-20th century art.  However I have always found it fascinating, ever since I saw the work of Rene Magritte as a child.  A year ago I saw an amazing exhibit of Metaphysical art in Florence and this past spring my interest was renewed when I visited the Magritte Museum in Brussels.

Surrealism didn't have one specific style but most artists were interested in either creating very realistic works that didn't make visual sense (such as Magritte) or in creating works that were done when they let go of a rational thought process (such as Miro).  One example of the latter is the painting above by Miro which gave the exhibit its name.

Max Ernst, The Forest, 1923, oil on canvas
Philadelphia Museum of Art: The Louise and Walter Arensberg Collection, 1950
© Estate of Max Ernst / SODRAC (2010)

Rather than being arranged chronologically, the curators divided the art work into several categories.  Some of those categories were "Spaces of the Unconsious", "Forests/Labyrinths", "Exquisite Corpse", "Myths, Maps, Magic" and "Anatomies of Desire" each highlighting a different aspect of Surrealism.

Both forests and labyrinths were aspects of the human psyche, forests were thought of as dark and foreboding and could be interpreted as the darker part of human nature.  Labyrinths were confusing places where people lost reason.  The Surrealists had a journal titled "Minotaur" after the Minotaur that was in the labyrinth of Greek Mythology.

Pietà or Revolution by Night, Max Ernst, 1923, oil on canvas
Tate Modern, Purchased 1981, © Estate of Max Ernst/SODRAC (2011)
Photo: Tate, London/Art Resource, NY

The "exquisite corpse" were group drawings where a folded piece of paper each had an artist add an element of a figure to it.  It is the visual equivalent of having everyone add a line to a story without seeing the line preceding it.  The results were interesting and usually pretty amusing in a creative way.

Myths, Maps, Magic highlighted the influence of the Canadian First Nations upon Surrealism.  There was a beautiful example from the Kwakwaka’wak tribe of a peace dance headdress made of maple, abalone, paint, cloth, ermine fur and sea lion whiskers which is part of the permanent collection of the Vancouver Art Gallery.

I came away with a better understanding and appreciation for Surrealism, as well as a sense that I want to learn morn about this art movement.  The Surrealists have provided inspiration for generations of Modern and Contemporary artists.

I think everyone will want to see this show, but if you do miss it there is a very good exhibit catalog which accompanies it: 

The Colour of My Dreams: The Surrealist Revolution in Art by Dawn Ades

Recommendations on Purchasing Music Supplies

Buying the right music supplies can be challenging. The number of music gear on the market can be overwhelming and difficult to go through. Especially for first timers, it is hard to evaluate which brands and models will give the right sound quality. You may find it difficult to differentiate the slightest discrepancies in sound quality.

Here are some pointers to help you avoid problems when buying music equipment.

Do Not Rush

You may never find the right things if you make hasty decisions. Refrain from making mistakes and take your time before you actually invest in a range of music supplies. Finding the right music equipment is important because you will use these for years to come. Likewise, they also come expensive. You cannot constantly splurge on music equipment to trade what you wrong for new ones.

Investing more time guarantees finding the appropriate items. Researching for all possible options increases your chances of buying products satisfying you for a long time. It is an old shopping cliché that when impulsiveness strikes, you likely regret your purchase in the end. Do not make the same mistake with something as expensive as music devices. Take your time. Do your homework and look for as many suppliers and products as you can. This will save you from future grief.

Know What You Need

From stage monitors to composition software, music equipment does not come in one-size fits all. Music devices have their specific use and outcome. If you want to produce a certain sound quality, you have to buy accurate equipment. For simple house recording, you can skip 24-track recording program and stick to less advanced products. Nonetheless, for local band recordings and similar projects, go beyond the 8-channel interface. You will simply outgrow the equipment putting your money to waste.

Check if your computer can accommodate the software you want. You may need to buy computer hardware to make your program work. Ask the following things when deciding on what you need:

- Is the amp sufficient for your prefer range of tone and music? Is it sufficient for what clients want?

- Do you want a flexible virtual instrument rig or stable keyboard workstation?

As much as possible, you should figure out your present and future needs before searching for music equipment. This will take you far in your music investment.

Differentiate Important Features

Manufacturers usually highlight impressive specs. Do not fall for what they put out as amazing features. Most of the time, it is not about the specs. Research about music device functions important for producing sound qualities. Focus more on the functionalities of equipment than on additional features. This saves you from paying for something you do not need.

The Arnolfini Wedding Portrait

There have been so many things written about the very well known Arnolfini Wedding Portrait done by Jan van Eyck in 1434 that I hope I can add something new.  At the same time I hope I can fit everything I want to say in just one blog post, this work is filled with meaning and it is a fascinating double portrait.

This was painted in Bruges by the Flemish artist van Eyck and showed a wealthy Italian patron who was originally from Lucca in Tuscany.  There was quite a lot of trade and influence between Tuscany and Flanders as Tuscany was known for its wool and wool cloth and Flanders for its tapestries.  Arnolfini had been living in Bruges for years.  It is a sign of his wealth and prestige to have commissioned a painting done by one of the highly sought after Flemish masters such as van Eyck.

Arnolfini Wedding Portrait, Jan van Eyck, 1434, The National Gallery (London)

In my very first blog post I cautioned modern viewers not to judge a painting by its title which can often be misleading.  The first reaction of many viewers when they see this is, "This is a wedding portrait? But she is very pregnant!" 


We should look at this instead as a portrait which commemorated the wedding between the Italian merchant Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his wife (whose identity in this painting is uncertain).  This could have been painted after her death (Arnolfini's first wife died in 1433 and there was no documented 2nd wedding), painted after the wedding, or even painted before a 2nd wedding took place.

When looking at this and other paintings from this time period the modern viewer needs to keep in mind that the standards of beauty in 15th century Flanders differ considerably from those in the late 20th/early 21st century.  At a time when so many people were very thin due to poverty, a plump figure was considered more attractive.  Also at a time when infant mortality rates were quite high, women would pad their stomachs to look pregnant as it was desirable to be so.  That was a sign of wealth, youth and fertility.  Look closely at the detail of the figures (below), the bride is actually holding a large piece of the fabric of her dress to her waist.

Arnolfini Wedding Portrait, detail of the figures, van Eyck, 1434

Therefore it is unknown if the woman was pregnant at all but was just trying to look like she was or to indicate that she was fertile and that the marriage would produce numerous children.  Or if it was an unintended side effect of holding her dress up which would have been necessary for her to walk.

Another fashion from the time was for a woman to pluck her hairline very far back, we can see that she has done this as well.  It was considered very elegant to have an extremely high forehead.

One reason that this has either been thought to be a memorial portrait or a portrait of a woman who Arnolfini is engaged to but hasn't met yet is her lack of specific features.  Versions of the same sweetly precious face can be seen in several of van Eyck's angels.  She looks rather stylized, like the idea of a beautiful woman rather than a specific person.  In the case of the former there wouldn't have been a record of her appearance and in the case of the latter it was not uncommon for marriages to be arranged.

However the features of Giovanni Arnolfini's face are very pronounced, compare his portrait with the one below.  This was also done by van Eyck and more than likely shows the same man, or another member of the wealthy Arnolfini family.

Portrait of a Man (possibly Giovanni Arnolfini) van Eyck, 

The National Museums' Gemäldegalerie, Berlin

 Arnolfini Wedding Portrait, detail of the dog and shoes, van Eyck, 1434

As was typical in paintings done at this time, the work is filled with symbols for the viewer.  The dog was a symbol of the fidelity of the marriage, and the shoes were removed as a sign of respect.  In fact shoes are often removed in Flemish paintings, the same thing can be seen in the Portinari Altarpiece, that I recently wrote about (if you look at that also note the high hairlines of the female saints as well).

Arnolfini Wedding Portrait, detail of the mirror, van Eyck, 1434

This painting isn't very large, (32.4 in × 23.6 in),  I have seen it in person at The National Gallery in London and some of the details can only be seen with a magnifying glass.  One example is the convex mirror on the back wall.  The mirror and the fact that two other people are entering the room can easily be seen.  There are ten small circular pictures embedded in the mirror that show scenes from the Passion of Christ which are very difficult to see with the naked eye.

Quite possibly the artist was using a type of magnifying glass in order to paint these small roundels and other very small and specific details.

Who were the two people in the mirror? It has been thought that one was the artist, or instead that it shows two witnesses to the actual marriage.  Were they instead figures who would have only been present in spirit such as patron saints or ancestors?  This has remained a mystery.

Arnolfini Wedding Portrait, detail of the window, van Eyck, 1434

The oranges which can be seen near the window were a subtle symbol of wealth, this is because they were not native to the region and would have been imported from a warmer climate.  Only the wealthy would have had oranges on hand.

Other symbols of wealth were the outfits that are worn, long and trimmed with fur, and the rich and vibrant pigments used to paint them.  The rich reds, blues and greens could only be achieved when semi precious imported stones were ground up and added to the paint to get such lustrous colors.

 Arnolfini Wedding Portrait, detail of the chandelier, van Eyck, 1434   

Lastly we will look at the signature and the chandelier.  This was painted at a time when not all artists signed their works, but here van Eyck has signed his name with a flourish.  He uses a formal calligraphy and writes "Jan van Eyck was Here" and adds the date as well.  One reason in fact that he is thought to be one of the figures in the mirror is how this is written.  Take note of St. Margaret, who is always shown trampling a dragon (as can also be seen in the wing of the Portinari altarpiece).  There is a figure of her on the bedpost though I am not certain of her significance in this scene.

The chandelier is a very interesting feature of the painting, it only has one lit candle, a reference to the ever present eye of God. The artist was carefully observing the laws of perspective when he painted this and the details on each elaborate arm.

There are still so many other objects and symbols in this work- the bed (referring to the marriage), the broom (the domestic realm), the cherry tree seen through the window (this is either a spring marriage or a reference to fruitfulness), the rosary (showing the sanctity of marriage).  Even the placement of the figures has a symbolism, the wife stands in the half near the interior which was her realm and Arnolfini stands closer to the window and outside since his realm was his business outside the home.

I really find this painting endlessly fascinating and judging by all that has been written on it I am not alone.

Hubert Robert's View of the Port of Ripetta in Rome

French painter Hubert Robert was born in 1733 and spent most of his life in Paris, however he was enrolled at the French Academy in Rome.  Robert spent a total of eleven years in Rome; it was there that he befriended Giovanni Battista Piranesi, whose workshop was located near the Academy.  The two artists would often go outside to sketch together; both men shared a love of ancient Rome and were drawn to the ruins.  During the years that Robert was in Rome he made hundreds of sketches filling several notebooks,

 Architectural Capriccio with Figure among Roman Ruins, Pannini, c-1630

He also befriended Giovanni Paolo Pannini while studying at the French Academy; Pannini was the professor of perspective .  Robert ended up working in his studio and Pannini became the biggest influence on his artistic style.  Pannini took on the role of a mentor for Robert and the younger artist proclaimed him to be the greatest painter of ruins in the world.  Pannini frequently painted fictitious cityscapes of Rome or “capriccios” which showed a variety of famous ruins grouped together in one spot, these paintings became popular with patrons on The Grand Tour of Italy.

Robert applied to be a member of the French Royal Academy in Paris and was accepted based on his 1766 painting View of the Port of Ripetta in Rome, which was exhibited in the Salon of 1767.  Robert’s painting is a unique style of capriccio, he is “redesigning Rome” by creating a scene pieced together from actual monuments both ancient and modern.  Rather than grouping together buildings to make a tourist capriccio in the style of Pannini, he dramatically changes the urban landscape.  The influence of both Piranesi and Pannini is evident, but with this painting Robert created a style all his own.  

View of the Port of Ripetta in Rome, Hubert Robert, 1766

The Port of Ripetta did exist in another fashion during the time that Robert lived in Rome.  The port was built in 1703 under the rule of Pope Clement XI and was designed by the architect Alessandro Specchi.  An accurate view of the port can be seen in an engraving by Piranesi which was done in 1753 (not shown here).  The port was built on top of a steep muddy bank (the very word Ripetta means little bank) which was already being used for the unloading of small commercial ships traveling to Rome down the Tiber River.  At its height the Port of Ripetta was quite busy but did not last very long; its usage and popularity had already waned by the later part of the eighteenth century.  By the time of the unification of Italy, river trade had declined and Rome’s population was growing, therefore there was a greater need for additional bridges to span the Tiber.  The port was completely dismantled in 1889, less than 200 years after it was built, today one end of the Ponte Cavour sits in its place and a piazza bearing its name is located nearby.  

In visually analyzing the work the viewer will notice that Robert has combined the architectural styles of several time periods in his view including ancient (the Pantheon), Renaissance (the Palazzo dei Conservatori from the Campidoglio to our left) and modern (the Port of Ripetta created only fifty years prior).  The city of Rome of course has combinations of architectural styles everywhere, but in Robert’s work the way they complement each other makes them appear to all have been planned at the same time.

Also notice that Robert has turned the port itself into a ruin with crumbling steps and the marble wearing off of the high harbor wall to reveal the bricks underneath much like the current condition of the Pantheon.  In this detail he seems to suggest that they were built at the same time.  The two architectural spaces seem to fit together nicely, the rounded wall complementing the cylindrical shape of the Pantheon.  Robert may also have done this to comment on the materials used to build the steps.  While most of the stone used for the steps was newly quarried, parts of it were quarried from both the Forum ruins and from the Coliseum and this fact was well known.  The Pantheon sits on flat ground and is today hidden from sight from a distance by other buildings, unlike the Coliseum.  Robert seeks to give the Pantheon a more prominent spot in the city which is fit for its majestic appearance.  By putting the viewpoint near the bottom of the picture we get an increased sense of the grandeur of this monument.

 The Pantheon in Rome, built in 126 AD

What is interesting is that in this work his main architectural feature is a monument which combines pagan and Christian meaning.  The Pantheon was a Roman temple for all the gods currently used as a church.  This unique work nearly gave Robert an opportunity to act as an architect, this redesign of an urban space hints at his later interest in architectural work such as in assisting with the design of the Grand Gallery of the Louvre.  This interest can be seen throughout Robert’s career and his studies at the Academy.  In his sketchbook from 1760 he has already created several small pen and ink wash capricci.  His interest in reviving ancient architectural proportions and in combining Christian and ancient symbolism are evident even then.   

Who did Robert have in mind as a viewer for his Roman capricci?  Possibly he imagined the viewer as someone who preferred to look back on a view that symbolized Rome rather than one that documented it.  There were also political associations with the symbolism of ruins which may have contributed to patronage.  In the eighteenth century Rome and ruins were tied in with the idea of Neoclassical art which became popular after the excavations at Pompeii.  Neoclassicism in later eighteenth century French painting represented the ending of the Bourbon monarchy, using classical imagery to symbolize the pre-imperial Roman republic in calling for France to reject the monarchy and form its own republic.  

Robert’s work can be viewed with multiple significances.  His architectural spaces combine the sense of proportion from both the ancient world and the late Baroque time in which he lives.  His use of architecture both adds to a romantic view of a classical world and can also be seen as a link between the knowledge of the past and the ties to the papal and possibly Bourbon rule of the present.

Imaginary View of the Grand Gallery of the Louvre in Ruins, Hubert Robert, 1796, Louvre

The use of ruins in Robert’s work can be seen to represent the constancy of man rather than to be used as symbols of destruction and decay.  The use of multiple figures at work or at play in his ruin paintings illustrate how mankind continues to participate with one another throughout the centuries.  That same concept led him to paint one of his more well known works while he was redesigning the Louvre to be a public art museum after the French Revolution, Imaginary View of the Grand Gallery of the Louvre in Ruins.  In this work he imagines this building in the future, and the cycle of tourists and ruins continuing indefinitely. 

The Still-Lives of Meléndez and Goya

In an earlier post I discussed how world history could be seen through the Dutch still-lives of the 17th century.  That post as well as this were excerpted from my paper Objects and Their Meanings: 400 Years of History as Seen Through the Still-Life.  I spoke on this last year at the NWHA conference where the topic was "Teaching World History Through Art."  I thought this was an excellent conference theme and learned a great deal.  I personally have learned so much of world history by studying art history and wanted to give another illustrating how the viewer can directly see world events affect still-life paintings.  Still-lives can be seen as primary source documents like letters and diaries.  Larger events in history and going to affect what and how everyday objects are shown.
 

Due to the difference in the reigns between King Charles III and King Charles IV we can see a duality in the style of still-life painting in late 18th  and early 19th century Spain.   As my example I will compare and contrast one each of the still-lives of Meléndez and Goya.

Still Life with Watermelons and Apples, Luis Egidio Meléndez, c-1770, Museo del Prado

The reign of Spain’s King Charles III (1716-1788) brought in a new era of prosperity with the conquest of Naples and Sicily.  Charles III was also working on urban planning and turning Madrid into a capitol city, in 1770 he chose a National anthem and flag for the country.  He had several court painters, one being Luis Egidio Meléndez, who painted a series of 40 still-lives for the Royal Palace.  He wanted to depict every type of fruit and vegetable grown in Spain, therefore those paintings can be seen as symbols of Spanish pride.  The following year Melendez painted his Afternoon Meal which reflected the leisure of the aristocracy who were able to picnic in the country on a variety of delicious types of produce and gave some insight into courtly life.

Still-Life with Sheep’s Head, Francisco Goya, 1808-12, Louvre

However after the King’s rule ended in 1788 Spain began to decline politically under the rule of the ineffectual king Charles IV.  Francisco Goya was the royal court painter but he was disillusioned by royalty, often portraying the royal family as buffoonish.  Goya lived through the particularly brutal Napoleonic siege on Madrid in 1808.  As he painted his well-known work, The 3^rd of May, which showed the horrors of war on a human scale, he concurrently painted several still-lives such as his Still-Life with Sheep’s Head.  This still-life was one of several where the subject was cut up meat or fish.  The butchered meat still-life wasn’t new but was now painted with a sense of disturbing accuracy and brutality due to the severed head.  The sheep can be seen as an innocent led to slaughter the way the Spanish people were during that terrible time.

The Third of May 1808, Francisco Goya, 1814, Museo del Prado