I'm no expert, merely an enthusiast. But I've got some ideas. Let yourself open up to the experience of the work. Don’t ask, what did the artist mean when she did x, y or z. Just focus on how looking at that work of art makes you feel. Then look for the details that made you feel that way.
A couple of years back, one of my Chicago friends wanted me to come up to the city because the art museum had just rearranged and reopened its display of antique (mostly 16th & 17th C) arms and armor. (We also hit the Ren Faire over the weekend.) In any event, its a topic that I have a fair amount of non-academic knowledge. So I was doing what she wanted me to do: provide a guided tour and detailed discussion of the exhibits. In the room specializing in match- and wheel-lock firearms, I was going on for a while until the kid who was stationed there came over so that he could listen as well. I got to explain the origin of such terms as "flash in the pan," "lock, stock, and barrel," and "going off half-cocked."
I think you would be a BLAST to go to a museum with, especially one exhibiting 16th and 17th century arms. I bet that kid was not only adorable, but whip-smart, too.
I want to comment, but comment sequentially, at each picture.
The date on "A Mother's Duty" surprised me. Everything looked so modern that I placed it mid- to late-19th C.
The Freud does not disconcert me at all. In fact, upon seeing the picture w/o the description, my first thought was my friend Vicki Walsh's work. I've become familiar enough with her style of portraiture that I'm pretty comfortable with it. The blemishes, the eyes that won't engage the viewer, the lack of smooth skin tones or transitions ...
Bacon: It took me a moment to realize that was a mouth and not an eye (both of which are plenty creepifyig.) Inside an almost implicit box. Interesting that he chose to drape the body in purple, since that was formerly a color exclusively limited to royalty.
van Miereveld: I'm thinking she is wealthy mercantile class, but NOT nobility, from the sumptuous nature of clothing, yet the color is a subdued earth tone. After her eyes, the thing that captures my attention are her hands. It was a common style of such paintings for the subject to hold things they thought representative of themselves. But her left hand rests at her waist, on the purely decorative (chain!) belt, while her right hand seems to be holding a richly embroidered handkerchief (?) except for the ties one sees dangling from it. The tacks in the cloth of her dress are reminiscent of the rivets used to hold the plates in medieval brigandine armor.
de Chirico: The figure in the bottom left looks like a marble funerary relief on a closed tomb. Interesting that the gratuitous arch frames just and only the dreamy palm trees even as smoke from the stack to the left can be seen to begin encroaching on the dream. The pose of the figure in the bottom left is a very familiar one. Obviously deliberate, but I wonder if the artist wants us to see it as beyond familiar, but downright cliche?
Skipping to Cassatt: My first thought was of Mary (the OTHER Mary) washing Jesus' feet. The setting is very middle class. I don't register any obvious affection in the child's pose, just acceptance and even a degree of expectation. I get the sense that the woman is a nanny or other sort of au pair.
I love, love, LOVE what you wrote here, and would only like to add that John thought the two palm trees in the de Chirico were unnecessary and detracted from the painting.
To me, the women featured in the 3rd example just looks horrified at the role she's forced to play. Born to a position she didn't choose, and quite literally chained to it for life. Why else does the brocade look so much like a chain?
Oooh! Oooh! Big time QED! You just demonstrated the point I'm trying to make exactly, precisely! I love your interpretation. This is so much fun. Imagine getting a bunch of Trumpers and parking them in front of a Francis Bacon painting. The comments alone!
A couple of years back, one of my Chicago friends wanted me to come up to the city because the art museum had just rearranged and reopened its display of antique (mostly 16th & 17th C) arms and armor. (We also hit the Ren Faire over the weekend.) In any event, its a topic that I have a fair amount of non-academic knowledge. So I was doing what she wanted me to do: provide a guided tour and detailed discussion of the exhibits. In the room specializing in match- and wheel-lock firearms, I was going on for a while until the kid who was stationed there came over so that he could listen as well. I got to explain the origin of such terms as "flash in the pan," "lock, stock, and barrel," and "going off half-cocked."
I think you would be a BLAST to go to a museum with, especially one exhibiting 16th and 17th century arms. I bet that kid was not only adorable, but whip-smart, too.
I want to comment, but comment sequentially, at each picture.
The date on "A Mother's Duty" surprised me. Everything looked so modern that I placed it mid- to late-19th C.
The Freud does not disconcert me at all. In fact, upon seeing the picture w/o the description, my first thought was my friend Vicki Walsh's work. I've become familiar enough with her style of portraiture that I'm pretty comfortable with it. The blemishes, the eyes that won't engage the viewer, the lack of smooth skin tones or transitions ...
Bacon: It took me a moment to realize that was a mouth and not an eye (both of which are plenty creepifyig.) Inside an almost implicit box. Interesting that he chose to drape the body in purple, since that was formerly a color exclusively limited to royalty.
van Miereveld: I'm thinking she is wealthy mercantile class, but NOT nobility, from the sumptuous nature of clothing, yet the color is a subdued earth tone. After her eyes, the thing that captures my attention are her hands. It was a common style of such paintings for the subject to hold things they thought representative of themselves. But her left hand rests at her waist, on the purely decorative (chain!) belt, while her right hand seems to be holding a richly embroidered handkerchief (?) except for the ties one sees dangling from it. The tacks in the cloth of her dress are reminiscent of the rivets used to hold the plates in medieval brigandine armor.
de Chirico: The figure in the bottom left looks like a marble funerary relief on a closed tomb. Interesting that the gratuitous arch frames just and only the dreamy palm trees even as smoke from the stack to the left can be seen to begin encroaching on the dream. The pose of the figure in the bottom left is a very familiar one. Obviously deliberate, but I wonder if the artist wants us to see it as beyond familiar, but downright cliche?
Skipping to Cassatt: My first thought was of Mary (the OTHER Mary) washing Jesus' feet. The setting is very middle class. I don't register any obvious affection in the child's pose, just acceptance and even a degree of expectation. I get the sense that the woman is a nanny or other sort of au pair.
I love, love, LOVE what you wrote here, and would only like to add that John thought the two palm trees in the de Chirico were unnecessary and detracted from the painting.
Great observations, Gares.
To me, the women featured in the 3rd example just looks horrified at the role she's forced to play. Born to a position she didn't choose, and quite literally chained to it for life. Why else does the brocade look so much like a chain?
Oooh! Oooh! Big time QED! You just demonstrated the point I'm trying to make exactly, precisely! I love your interpretation. This is so much fun. Imagine getting a bunch of Trumpers and parking them in front of a Francis Bacon painting. The comments alone!
Their assault upon the art world would probably be as egregious as their assault upon the mother tongue.
I mean woman - don't see a way to edit that.
I'm not sure there is one!