FILM 6: Rembrandt/Greenaway

Peter Greenaway is a respected British film director who originally started out as a painter. He has made 12 films and over 50 documentaries. He is an established film maker throughout the world and has a good reputation for the work he has done. We should definitely believe his stories because of the success he has had and the evidence he developed in the film. His knowledge covers a wide range of topics and time periods, which is evident in his work.

Greenaway chooses to discuss the image, “Nightwatch,” by Rembrandt. Greenaway suggests that the painting represents murder and conspiracy. Throughout the film, he sheds light on the mysteries of the painting and what evidence there is of murder. He was very effective in describing this painting. He knew exactly what aspects of the artwork would lead to different events in the time period and went into detail about them. The multitude of evidence he presented definitely got the job of convincing his audience done. I think he decided to only talk about this painting because there is so much to it. It is not a painting that can be described in a couple minutes. There are so many aspects such as the lighting, 34 characters, expressions, historical context and background, that an entire film needed to be dedicated to this piece of art.

The location used in this film was Amsterdam. Greenaway chose this because it is where the setting of the painting takes place. This was the most effective because it gave insight to the culture and time period of the painting.

Greenaway chose to use theatrical reenactments because it let the viewer get inside the painting and the time period. I really liked this film because of the reenactments. I think it helped me understand exactly what was going on and the reasons behind different aspects of the painting, such as the interview with Rembrandt’s wife or the height difference between the two men in the artwork. I liked the dramatic way in which the painting came to life and how Greenaway went into detail through the reenactments. This was definitely his most effective strategy, in my opinion. For someone who does not know a lot about paintings and artists, I thought it was helpful to get his point across and also give me a better look into the meaning of the painting.

What was your favorite part of the film?

FILM 5: Caravaggio/Schama

According to Columbia University's website, Simon Schama is a British art historian and a Professor of Art and Art History at Columbia University. He is also an art and cultural critic for The New Yorker. He has written many books and appeared throughout the United States and United Kingdom as well. He won over fifteen prizes and honors including those of New York Times Best Books of the Year, and National Book Critics Circle Award. He’s kind of a big deal. I definitely think we should believe his stories.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arthistory/faculty/Schama.html

One of the paintings that I liked the most was, “The Death of Mary.” Because of the belief that the Son of Mary was not born by flesh, Caravaggio’s painting represented that Mary’s death was not by flesh. The first thing I saw was Mary laid dead, kind of sprawled out. The lighting on Mary’s body is very light, her skin is green. The next thing that drew my attention was the apostles all gathered around her body. They look distraught and upset by this sight. They’re bodies are in darker lighting, with a dark background as well. The belief is that Mary is asleep in the painting because she is leaving not in flesh but in soul. They are so upset because she is living the mortal world, which is reason enough to mourn. This painting controls my eye simply by color. I was drawn by the lighter colors and the sight of Mary laying there dead. Caravaggio used this lighting to draw the viewers’ attention to her body. He made this painting to merge together the ideas of past and present. It was rejected, which made his life spiral into a bunch of disastrous events thereafter.

The storyteller chose to use such dramatic lighting and theatrical reenactments because it gave Caravaggio the image that he was trying to portray. He wanted the light to be used to get the viewers into the moment rather than just looking at it. The dramatic lighting and the way we saw Caravaggio interact with others and his paintings gave me an eerie feeling. I think this was effective in the sense that I understood his art better. The light and dark in his paintings illuminates the focal point and how we should view Caravaggio’s life as well. His life was full of disorder and dark times, which are brought through in his paintings. This makes the story a lot more believable. It gives distinct images and sheds light on the feelings that went into the paintings. I also liked the theatrical moments, especially when they reenacted what’s going on in Caravaggio’s life as well as some of the paintings. I could feel the emotion and it gave a better insight as to what was going on in his life at the time.

What is your opinion of Caravaggio's life?

FILM 4: Hockney/Knowledge

David Hockney is considered one of the most celebrated and influential British artists of the 21^st century. He is a painter, printmaker, stage designer, and photographer. He has designed covers of Vogue, worked with computer painting programs, and had large displays in the National Portrait Gallery in London. I believe his stories because he has had so much success and accolades. According to a David Hockney website, there are numerous awards awarded to him throughout his entire life. Awards such as “Distinguished Honoree,” and the 5^th Annual Governor’s Award, to name a few. While watching the video, I thought the things he was saying made sense as well. There was science behind his findings and I think the use of lenses was a solid conclusion for him.
http://www.hockneypictures.com/awards/edu_awards_1.php

The secret knowledge was that artists used lenses in order to paint their portraits and paintings. Hockney suggested that artists used the lenses to capture the folds in a curtain or a curving of an object. After looking at the scientific evidence, it seems apparent that an artist would need the different angles in order to paint. I don’t think it changes the way I look at painting because either way, the artistry and talent behind the painting is still there. The use of a lens doesn’t change anything for me because I still believe that what an artist sees and paints is their own creation, regardless of what they use.

Hockney used interviews, scientific experiments, and personal encounters with paintings and lenses to tell his story. The most effective for me was the chandelier demonstration. This showed that other sources were used to make the painting and that mirrors played a large role in it. I thought this was the most effective because he clearly showed how they were used and what this did for the image itself. He then went further and demonstrated more with the mirrors and cameras.The details he used and the knowledge he has about the topic made it that more convincing for me. I also think that the paintings looked closer to real life with the use of lenses and mirrors. They came to life more so than just a 2D looking image on paper.


What does Hockney's secret knowledge change about your views of painting?

FILM 3: Michelangelo/Marlow

Tim Marlow is a British writer and art historian. He has his own shown where he looks at current art exhibitions. I think we should believe his story because he has researched Michelangelo for years and has many credible publications.

The painting I liked most was the Doni Tondo. The first thing that was brought to my attention was the background with the young naked men. Tim says this represents a classical world divided by the Christian world. John the Baptist is almost present. The second thing is the holy family themselves. He skews the traditional format of the family and puts flesh on them. Joseph and Mary hold their young son, him almost pulling at Mary. Then I noticed Mary’s body, slightly muscular. Everything is an overall vision of the drama of the painting itself. It was made with the look of more of a sculpture feel than a painting. This was one of the only paintings Michelangelo did not use assistants for. His technique includes shading with bright colors to lighter ones on top.

I think the most effective location was the statue of David in the middle of the square. The sculpture was so huge and dominating that people could not help but stop and admire it. Although having a naked man in such a public place was controversial, it certainly got the point across. The storyteller used significant locations to tell parts of the story because the sculptures were placed in locations that stood out and should be seen. Going to see the sculptures do them justice rather than just seeing a picture of them. It really made them feel more important and show the significance of Michelangelo’s work.

Which paintings do you like more, Michelangelo or DaVinci? Why?

FILM 2: DaVinci/Bruce

Fiona Bruce is a British journalist and has made many appearances throughout the BBC. She researches DaVinci and has connections all over the world leading her to his paintings. We should believe her because she interviews professionals and gets the research she needs to tell people the history and mysteries of DaVinci.

The painting that I liked the most was the painting with Mary and baby Jesus at the center. It's the one that is unfinished. I like this one because it appears to be out of order, dark, and chaotic, but there is a ton of meaning and clarity within it. I especially liked it because it is not one that I would normally look twice at. I don't particularly enjoy the darker paintings, but this one interested me. What I saw first was dark colors, scary and almost creepy faces pointed towards Mary, and a lot going on. I didn't like the images of the people in the background because they were leering and scowling. What I focused on second was the image of Mary herself. She looked serene and calm although all of this was going on around her. Third, the camera focused on the image of a young man looking away from everything else going on. It is rumored that this is DaVinci himself in the painting. I thought this was interesting because the religious symbolism is that he is turning away from Mary and baby Jesus, as well as the dark images around them. This, to me, represented that his views are not obscured by the negative images around and is also not particularly religious. I like the idea that this could be his only self-image in any of his paintings.

She uses expert interviews to tell parts of her story because this gives it authenticity and credit for her findings. It shows that her opinions are not unfounded and other people have investigated DaVinci’s paintings as well. The most effective interviews were with the curator at the Louvre, Vincent Deleuvin, and Martin Kemp about Mona Lisa. Vincent described the painting as what the viewer sees and gives it meaning. He says that there is mystery all over the world about this painting and I liked how he described how important it is. Martin explained the actual physical painting aspect really well and how the pigment affects how one views the portrait overall. He also explained how the light affected his painting, which was interesting to me because when one looks at Mona Lisa, they don’t necessarily think of how the light and/or pigment influenced DaVinci but his interview made me think about that. Martin Kemp also had a wide knowledge of DaVinci on many paintings. I thought this was effective because it showed that Fiona used people who really know DaVinci’s paintings inside and out.

Discussion Question:

What do you think the significance of DaVinci’s paintings being unfinished is? Is that important to know?

FILM 1: Paint/History

"Paint is a pigmented liquid that dries to form a solid protective film."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paint
The components are: resin/binder - the binder or glue that holds the paint to the surface
pigment: the color, mostly solid. Can be anything from ground-up minerals to complex carbon based chemicals
solvent: helps flow and smooth out the liquid on it's surface

I think the most significant evolution in paint is the use of latex paint. Prior to this, the paints that were used were solvent paints. They were hazards of flamability and took a really long time to dry. Latex launched the "do it yourself" painting methods. It also dries really quickly because the water evaporates and the particles move closer and closer together. Latex paint is now widely used and has made making/applying paint a much easier process.

"A painting is applying paint, pigment, or color to a surface."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painting
It is important that a painting lasts for 500, 30,000 years because this can tell us about their lives and painting techniques during that time period. The very first records of human life were because of paintings on cave walls. This is so important because without it, we would not have known about evolution or human life in general. The cave paintings show a keen eye for creating pigments and allow today's painters and scientists to study color over time. Colors like red and black were made from the minerals and coal that the people of the time had. This gives us insight as to how colors are made and how to make more colors as well.

What role do you think paint plays in today's society?

Amanda Werniak
Elementary Education
I chose this course because I need to meet my Fine Arts requirement and paintings have always been something I have interest in.