The Mona Lisa is Happy

In Cracking the Mona Lisa Smile, Elizabeth Millard demonstrates how technology is currently playing a role in the analysis of artwork. Personally, I think technology should not be used when analyzing art work, especially when so little is know about the work. The role of technology in artwork should be an informative role, which it is for the most part.

Millard references an experiment conducted by Sebe and Huang, who developed emotion-recognition software and applied it to the Mona Lisa. Using the software, the two University of Amsterdam and University of Illinois researchers quantified the Mona Lisa’s facial emotion. The use of “algorithms that quantify facial expressions” and “face tracking software that determines several major emotions in expression” allowed the researchers to quantify the painting. The researchers obtained their experimental data by determining the displacements in the Mona Lisa when compared to a “neutral, Caucasian female face”. The experiment determined that the Mona Lisa is 82.67 percent happy, 9.17 percent disgust, 5.81 percent fearful and 2.19 percent angry.

The two researchers admitted that the experiment was conducted for their own amusement and claim that they will not be examining any further works of art. Their main purpose was to highlight the “value and potential of emotion-recognition software.” While there is no doubt validity in their experiment, it should not be used as a means of analysis. If anyone were to use the results of this experiment to make an analysis of the Mona Lisa, they would be completely erroneous. The software may very well be dead on in the Mona Lisa being 82.67 percent happy; however, the Mona Lisa is a painting, not a real person. That means that, even though the facial expression is one of happiness, Da Vinici may not have intended it that way. The identity of the Mona Lisa is not known for sure. Some believe that she was “Lisa Gherardini, the wife of a Florentine cloth merchant”, while there are those that believe that she was not even based on a real person, but rather a composite of models. Dr. Lillian Schwartz, from Bell Labs even concluded that the Mona Lisa is a self-portrait of Da Vinci through a technological comparison of the Mona Lisa to a known self-portrait by Da Vinci. When she used a computer to compare the two images “the features of the face (aligned) perfectly.” (Mona Lisa). Many art historians do not agree with Schwartz’s experiment. They claim that Da Vinci, as a great artist, would have spent a great deal of his time practicing drawing the human face. The historians claim that Da Vinci likely used his own face to practice drawing; therefore, there are many similarities between the Mona Lisa’s face and Da Vinci’s own face (Mona Lisa). Given that we know so little about the identity of the Mona Lisa, the data from Sebe and Huang’s experiment should not be used to make inferences about the painting. Technology will never be able to confirm what Da Vinci was actually thinking and feeling when he painted the Mona Lisa.

Technology can, however, serve more useful roles in art. According to Millard, technology is playing a major role in the discussion of art. Today, technology can unite artists and their audiences via the internet. The article notes the growing use of blogs to discuss a particular work of art. The article also notes that technology is now used for art databases. These databases store prices for artwork and are a great idea because the freedom of information on the internet prevents art galleries from taking advantage of potential customers. Perhaps the most useful application of technology is the use of it to verify the authenticity of artwork.

Millard, Elizabeth. " Cracking the Mona Lisa Smile." NewsFactor Network. 03 February

2006. 08 Apr 2007. http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=41276&page=1

"Mona Lisa." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 10 Apr 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_lisa

.

Enlightening Vermeer's Light

Being a film buff who particularly loves costume pieces, naturally I was drawn to looking at Vermeer paintings for at least one of these assignments. Reading through the article “The Strangeness of Vermeer” by Svetlana Alpers in Art in America (an article written in 1996) I was stricken with just how many of the technical aspects of Vermeer’s work that Tracy Chevalier wove into her novel Girl With a Pearl Earring. What is truly interesting about the article is that it was written in reflection after going to an exposition of over two-thirds of Vermeer’s paintings. The article is not so much an examination of his techniques or the interpretations of specific paintings, but more the appreciation of all of his works put together and how, as a whole, the body of work can be interpreted.

There main argument of the article involves both Vermeer’s portrayal of women (as well as the few men in his paintings) and the way that the paintings are much more a small window into the ideal world than a reflection of it. Alpers claims that the portrayal of Vermeer’s women is not so much to represent them as women but that they become this overarching representation of humanity itself. The work that the article is most concerned with as a singular piece is Lady Writing a Letter With Her Maid. Personally, my favorite aspect of Vermeer’s paintings (and from what I can tell, most critical acclaim) is his realistic and innovative use of lighting. Alper’s particular fascination seems to be with the lighting of the Lady’s bodice, as on one shoulder it’s a deep grayish tone and on the shoulder closer to the light source it has become entirely bleached white. The page of an art criticism teacher explains to me numerous pieces of symbolism in the painting that I never even picked up on, such as the large painting in the background being a famous rendition of Moses “indicating that somebody must be rescued and cherished” and that on the window there is the sign of Temperance.

The thing that really catches my attention when I look at the painting is that the maid in the background seems to be presiding over the action, as well as being idle. The Lady may be in the foreground, yet she is occupied and her face is hidden. The painting projects that while the maid may not have all the liberty and wealth in the world, she elevates herself above petty things in the letter (there is even a letter crumpled up on the floor suggesting that the Lady was not satisfied with a previous draft). The maid also has the freedom to dream, suggested by the fact that she stares wistfully out of the window, and though she wears a poor person’s dress, her body remains untouched by any table, finery, or task. I also like the way that both women look in completely opposite directions, leading one to think that perhaps two worlds are portrayed here even in this tiny corner of the room.

Granted, I may have slightly romantic notions as to Vermeer’s works because of the novel Girl With a Pearl Earring, yet even in the novel as well as the movie the “strangeness” (as Alpers calls it) of Vermeer’s work comes through. They portray his detachedness of his work that Alpers put best: “in Vermeer's practice the painter crafting an image on the canvas is as humanly detached as if he himself were light making an image on a camera obscura screen.”

An Abstract Dance

During the 1930’s and 40’s and the outbreak of World War II, surrealists fled from Europe and eventually settled in New York. Soon, their interest in unmediated expression influenced a younger generation of painters to find a voice for American art, one of these painters being abstract expressionist, Karen Davie. The European pioneers of abstraction heavily influenced the new movement, which later became known as Abstract Expressionism. The movement “abstract” gets its name because it incorporates emotion and is a rebellion from the norm. Unlike the “hands off” approach that Jackson Pollock used with drip paint, Karen’s technique uses thick blocks of color and light to create the “busy” feeling. As opposed to the style of Jackson Pollock, Davie’s stoke of her brush tip never leaves the canvas. With abstract expressionism being somewhat of an emotion, many have their opinions as to whether Davie’s creations are considered art when trying to interpret her work. While Deven Golden praises Davie for the original aesthetics, tools and techniques that intensify her work, Roberta Smith claims that her work is a joke resembling that of a fun house as opposed to a piece of work.

Creating art as pure emotion and creativity, the idea of expressionism itself said, “what was to go on the canvas was not a picture but an event". This all-over approach used every aspect of the canvas and treated the entire space the same so that the eye can make its own meaning. According to Deven Golden, the way that the lines veer from the canvas symbolizes a losing control as both the viewer and the artist. Using darker colors mixed in with a host of bright sunny ones, Golden credits Davie’s clever use of dark colors to liven up the brighter ones. The longer one looks at the paintings, the more interpretations and ideas a person draws. In no way however, she adds, that even though the lines appear sad and droopy, Davies works are not depressing because her brush strokes are too erratic and difficult to consider depressing. Because Davie’s paintings require all of her body, she has to concentrate heavily on her task, as she performs her “dance” she worked so hard to choreograph.

At the time, few scholarly art critics could interpret the ideas and meanings in works such as Jackson’s and Karen’s because they lacked literary knowledge. Some could not and did not understand the political references and the beauty behind the rebellious attitudes of the era. Roberta Smith of the New York Times presents her thoughts addressing Karen’s works. Unable to make connections to the strokes that was ineptly explained by Deven Golden, Roberta only seems to mock the works of Davie. One of Davie’s works entitled “Pushed, Pulled, Depleted, & Duplicate looks like several of her other paintings.

However, the color and strokes of the brush in each suggest a different emotion. Smith incoherently adds that her works are similar to the stripes in a fun-house mirror. She further goes on insulting Davie’s usage of tools as being “inextricably fused” making her work seem more and more a blob of nothing, concluding that her works resembles toothpaste from a tube. Sarcastically, Smith mocks the mixed colors that Davie blends saying that the colors make nothing but curves that look like candy-stripes. Understandably, there clearly must have been something else going through the artist’s mind. Its art for crying out loud, a chance to express feelings, emotions and freeness.

At the most, I am able to say that I understand how the colors and forms of the paintings created by Davie are abstract. I believe that Roberta needs to find a little more research on what exactly abstract expressionism is because she clearly is confused. Who are we to say that someone’s work is not abstract when we were obviously not in their minds while they were painting? It is not modernism in clown makeup Smith mocked, but rather a choreographed movement to relay her emotions. We don’t know if those white and red, and blue colors show her pride in her country, or if the landscape of the portrait shows Davie’s anger and discontent with the politics in the country. This may be her way of showing her dissatisfaction with the way things are rather than using picket signs like normal people. As complicated as art may be, Davie’s simplistic yet complex style, has so much to say, if only we knew where it began.


Work Cited:
http://the-artists.org/MovementView.cfm?id=8A01EE83%2DBBCF%2D11D4%2DA93500D0B7069B40

Golden, Deven. “Notes on…Karin Davie.” http://www.artcritical.com/golden/DGDavie.htm

Smith, Roberta. “Art in Review”. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DD103AF930A15757C0A96F958260

Van Gogh Loved to Sew

Sewing is an archaic way of making clothes. Even when Vincent van Gogh was around, in the 19th century, sewing machines were used as a practical way of manufacturing items to be worn. With this in mind, Lauren Soth, in her article “Van Gogh’s Images of Women Sowing” still asserts that van Gogh painted women manually sewing because he had values that “led him to choose such traditional subjects as seemed illustrative of them.” Who really knows what van Gogh’s values were? Using just some of van Gogh’s common motifs in his paintings and his love life as evidence of his distain for the mechanical world is founded in some ways, but not in others. Focusing, instead, on his own words about life will lead the viewer to a clearer perception of the artist, his ideals, and the reasons behind his choice of subject.



“To me it is as clear as day that one must feel what one draws.” Because van Gogh depicted his life with his artwork, Soth uses van Gogh's quote saying that his works consisted of manual labor and nothing technological. Yet the lack of technological labor becomes questionable especially when his work evolved around the Industrial Revolution. His negligence of technological innovations confused many educated individuals. Surely van Gogh encountered technical mechanisms; therefore, one cannot assume that he ignored the sewing machines near him. Van Gogh painted things relevant to life such as women sewing clothes evident in his piece entitle "Women Sewing". However, one cannot assert that he detested sewing machines and valued traditions, when instead he just liked the image of a seamstress. Van Gogh just drew as he felt, not truly as he believed. To believe and to feel two evoke two dissimilar emotions.


Van Gogh, like Soth points out, did try to paint in the likeness of his life, but it was not his true life and instead what he wished it to be. In the “Woman Sewing,” the subject most probably being his lover and also prostitute called Sien, Soth determines that this woman must have sewn his clothes by hand; however, given the time period, that idea cannot be. The clothing style of this period () was much more likely to have been sewn mechanically because of the invention of the sewing machine. The garbs were intricately woven and fashioned, something a simple seamstress would be incapable of doing by hand. Soth goes on to quote van Gogh as saying, in regards to Sien, “she is incapable of doing what she ought to do,” as a clear indication that van Gogh believed she should be at home sewing instead of whoring herself out, which could be the case. But, in the context, Soth asserts van Gogh proclaimed that women should sew and do nothing to earn their wages. He did end up leaving her, but not because of her wage earning power, but because she was indeed a prostitute. His painting reflected not his life, but some sort of ideal that did not directly correlate with his surroundings. In particular, “Woman Sewing,” van Gogh is determined to paint the seamstress “as a dark silhouette against the window” which could be indicative of a longing for escape from manual labor that a sewing machine and other industries might provide if the seamstress ventures into the light of the outdoors. If interpreted this way, the seamstress and van Gogh himself are rejecting traditional ways and instead yearn for change.


When van Gogh left Holland, he no longer painted with the seamstress motif. Soth believes it was because of his emotional ties to Sien and the seaming world, which is valid given the eventual departure of Sien and the fact that his family rejected the promiscuous life of Sien, pleading with him to abandon her. Yet it is also plausible to assume he found other things to paint. Van Gogh simply realized it was idealistic to believe that women would solely sew his clothes and do nothing else, therefore he stopped painting this image once he left Holland, where perhaps more women were willing to sew. The fact that he never returned to Holland meant he was no longer concerning himself with the manufacturing of clothing in a homely sense and instead focused on broader issues, such as farming and real every day life that was not just his ideal.

Religious Undertones In Rembrandt's Latter Paintings

In an article from ArtNet.com, critic N. F. Karlins discusses Rembrandt’s concluding works and how these works seem to address Rembrandt’s inner struggles through religious subject matter. During Rembrandt’s later years, he was faced with economic problems as he was, at that point, “yesterday’s news.” Not only was he troubled financially, but he was also brought before a court by a woman who claimed he had fallen back on a promise to marry her (tough legal system). To make matters worse, Rembrandt was forced to live out his days with a sullied reputation after having an illegitimate child with the lucky Hendrickje Stoffels.

The series of paintings, perhaps an intentional series, perhaps not, represents inner struggle. Each painting is characterized by “lined brows, putty-like hands and drooping eyelids,” a fact that illustrates the inner drama and emotional struggles faced by each figure. One notices the deep struggle over, presumably, religious questions in the majority of the paintings. Religion is the presumed topic of contemplation by the characters considering a number of characteristics found in many of the works. These characteristics include the subject matter itself (saints, evangelists, Christ, the Sorrowful Virgin, possibly a monk), signs of martyrdom (knives, swords) as well as numerous props such as religious dress and bibles. At least one character, the apostle Paul, is represented in more than one painting.

Rembrandt’s spiritual history during the time these paintings were created leads one to believe that the paintings relate to the struggles one faces as life comes to an end coupled with the ensuing questions and uncertainties. Rembrandt, religious or not, must have been looking for answers to the struggles facing his life and as was natural for him, he expressed his pains and questions through art. This last set of paintings was by no means his only attempt to represent Christianity. Religiously themed paintings can be found throughout Rembrandt’s career. The painting illustrating the mother of his illegitimate child, Hendrickje Stoffels, may have been painted to show the agony of not only the social stigmas placed on someone in the situation, but also the perceived scorn from God after having a child out of wedlock. The focus of the painting, as is the case with the others in the set, is on Stoffels' face. With a pursed mouth and face that looks away from the painter, the painting seems to indicate embarrassment and contemplation over how and why the subject became involved in such a socially and religiously unacceptable act.

One oddity concerning The Apostle Bartholomew is that Rembrandt paints him in traditional European clothing. Considering Bartholomew lived in the first century, he lacked the luxury of a nice comb-over haircut or chic European duds. He does carry a knife that represents his religious martyrdom, but Rembrandt gets the viewer thinking by portraying Bartholomew as his contemporary. This painting was probably supposed to parallel a more realistic representation of Bartholomew that Rembrandt painted about a half decade earlier and can be seen by clicking on the earlier link.

Rembrandt’s last paintings are something to marvel over. Not only are they aesthetically appealing, but they allow the viewer to dive into Rembrandt’s past through a significant amount of imagery. Upon learning of Rembrandt's life history during the time of his latter works, one is able to realize where he was coming from and what influenced his paintings. In terms of social and religious questions, Rembrandt probably had a lot of them during this time. Perhaps he wasn’t struggling with religious questions, but only decided to illustrate his emotional uncertainty through subject matter that was familiar to him.

Robinson: From Protégés to Mentor

Theodore Robinson was an American impressionist who was greatly influenced by the French impressionist Claude Monet. In two articles about Robinson, the relationship Robinson developed with Monet is clear and defined. There is no one who would argue that Monet did not have a significant impact on Robinson; however, the first article claims that Robinson eventually became a mentor himself when he returned to America. The second article, however, does not make any mention of Robinson becoming a mentor even though the second article is based on Robinson’s own diary. There are most definitely differences in the tow articles; however, it seams that the second article irresponsibly ignores the fact that Robinson went on to become a mentor himself.

According to the article Lessons Learned: Monet’s Influence on Robinson by Stephen May, there were nearly 60 paintings at a traveling art show that showed the similarities between the two artists. This article focuses on the fact that Robinson eventually became a mentor himself as a result of his relationship with Monet. During his six visits to Germany, Robinson developed a friendship in which they frequently dined together and critiqued each other’s work. Stephen May notes that this was an unusual friendship because Monet did not usually associate with the many American artists who sought his advice. As their friendship developed, Monet asked Robinson to critique his early paintings in the Rouen Cathedral series. This series had such a great impact on Robinson that he decided to paint three landscapes known as the Valley of the Seine. Monet called this series the best landscape he’d seen out of Robinson. One of the most important influences Monet had over Robinson was convincing Robinson to find subjects in America and “devote (his) efforts to immortalizing them.”

After Robinson last saw Monet in 1892, he became a mentor to an artist named Jacques Busbee. The article justifies the relationship between Robinson and Busbee by citing a passage from Robinson’s diary where Busbee is mentioned. Passing on Monet’s advice, Robinson advised Busbee to focus on the wide-ranging picture rather than obsessing over the details. Robinson also stressed the importance of drawing as a foundation for painting. He advised Busbee to focus on making sketches with charcoal, pencil, or crayon before attempting to paint. This he said, “…is necessary for all art-even the most evanescent or amusing, vivacious, or non-serious.” Like Monet, Robinson above all stressed the importance of paining subjects that are of interest and not to make work a “grind”. It is not clear from the article what the extent of Robinson’s relationship with Busbee was. Nevertheless, this author of this article thought their relationship was worth mentioning, most likely because it demonstrates how Monet’s style was spread to great American artists.

Another article, The Diary of Theodore Robinson, an American Impressionist by Sona Johnston summarizes the relationship between Robinson and Monet by making use of Robinson’s diary as its primary source. Unlike the first article, this article does not imply that Monet was not very receptive to American artists. Robinson said that he was “most cordially received” during their first encounter. This article also implies that their relationship was in fact very intimate. Their relationship must have been intimate because Robinson was a guest at Monet’s wedding. Like the first article, this article makes it very clear that Robinson was greatly influenced by Monet’s impressionist style. The two artists were so similar that people claimed they both left their paintings unfinished. The most striking feature about this article is the fact that it makes no mention of Robinson being a mentor to the artist Jacques Busbee. While the first article stresses that Robinson took Monet’s teaching back to American and became a mentor himself, this article makes no mention of Robinson’s relationships with any protégées he may or may not have had. Seeing as how this article is based on his diary, it would be safe to assume that the important aspects of his life were addressed in this article. Perhaps that article chose not to address Robinson’s influence on other artists, or perhaps Robinson did not consider himself to be a mentor. Given the tone of the first article, that is not likely. The first article made it very clear that the relationship between Robinson and Busbee was that of a mentor and a protégés.

After reading each article, there is no question that Robinson developed a serious relationship with Monet. Furthermore, it is clear that Monet’s advice followed Robinson back to America where Robinson attempted to find beauty in his American subjects. In the first article, it is implied that Robinson eventually became a mentor himself, in the same way that Monet was a mentor to him. The second article, which relies on a first hand account of Robinson’s life, his diary, does not make any mention of Robinson becoming a mentor himself.

Heads Rembrandt, Tails Lievens

Art. I generally have no passion for the traditional sense of the word. When a monkey can take a paint brush, make a few lines on a canvas and sell it for thousands of dollars, I just have to question the whole movement. However, there is one style of art that I really enjoy and one artist that really strikes me as having some serious skill. Rembrandt. The guy could paint and the Dutch Golden Age of the 17^th century is really something.

There are many critics, both adoring and critical, of Rembrandt’s work. Naturally, as one of the world’s most revered artists, an opinion of every kind will be had with respect to his work. One area of debate concerns the level to which Rembrandt collaborated with his contemporary, Jan Lievens. Because of the infancy of historical documenting methods during the day, truly knowing the level to which Rembrandt collaborated with Lievens will probably never be known, nevertheless, a number of art scholars have debated the issue.

Within art history circles, there is a developing belief that a number of drawings attributed to Rembrandt were actually drawn by Lievens. Roelof van Straten argues that at least two paintings attributed to Rembrandt (Circumcision, Rest on the Flight into Egypt) were actually painted by Lievens. He also argues that Rembrandt didn’t even begin making prints, as these two drawings are, until 1628, until at least three years after these drawings were created. In his essay, Straten does acknowledge that the two artists were trained in similar styles in relative close proximity, leading one to believe that the similarities between each painter’s creations are a result of this training, however, he notes that the similarities in style between many of Lievens’ drawings and the two mentioned earlier are so similar that there is little chance that Lievens did not draw them. He references the cross-hatchings in the clothing and the tilting of heads as important similarities. Straten sums up his argument by saying “there is no reason to believe that the styles of Rembrandt and Lievens were so close that their hands could possibly be confused” meaning that each artist has certain idiosyncrasies that even a similar stylistic training would overrule.

Straten also addresses the fact that Rembrandt’s name was etched on a number of paintings that he considers someone else’s. He notes that at least once, Rembrandt’s name was misspelled causing one to ask: Why would Rembrandt misspell his own name? He also notes that throughout Rembrandt’s career, dealers/artists would place Rembrandt’s name on their paintings in order to make money off of his fame. Also, the name of a buyer visited by Lievens (historically documented) finds itself on a questionable painting. Straten concludes that Lievens initially took his painting to Berendrecht, was initially rejected, but later the dealer Berendrecht in Haarlem retained the printing plate for the piece, and began printing the piece with Rembrandt’s name on it to cash in on Rembrandt’s fame.

While it is becoming more accepted that some of the drawings attributed to Rembrandt are Lievens’, there is still insufficient evidence to definitively say who really drew them. While Schatborn’s article does agree with Straten’s on some accounts, it is not a full endorsement of Straten’s “evidence” by any means. The thesis is hard to find in this article, but it can be summed up by saying that the evidence does not conclusively attribute Rembrandt’s drawings as Lievens’.

Schatborn relies on the training of the two men to explain why each could have drawn so similarly that the drawings attributed to Rembrandt could actually be his. Because each was closely trained under Amsterdam artist Pieter Lastman, there would have been elements of both artists’ work that would look the same, especially in their earlier drawings when their own idiosyncrasies would not yet have matured. The drawings in question are those of the artists’ earlier careers, so questions will arise more often here than in their later works. Schatborn’s main evidence is in this time difference, in that even though later works by Lievens and Rembrandt resemble one another, certain stylistic differences are apparent. But because these earlier style differences were not obvious, it is hard to assume that the attributed Rembrandt drawings are Lievens’.

Personally, I believe that the argument attributing some of Lievens’ drawings to Rembrandt is entirely possible, if not probable. Both articles reference the fact that art historians are increasingly suspicious of the early Rembrandt drawings and that they are probably Lievens’. Also, the ability for these critics and historians to accurately pick out small peculiarities between each man makes me believe that they know what they are saying. Although the evidence is not conclusive; I think the argument is a strong one, considering the practice of printers to put Rembrandt’s name on works that were not his in order to sell them.

Artibus et Historiae

Master Drawings