Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Sunday, March 3, 2013
VIKINGS
I just watched the first episode on the History Channel. I think this is my new favorite show.
I've been here and there. I've drawn a lot of pictures. I've written a bit, too. I'm not good at this self-promotion thing. Look, you want to know about me? just visit these websites. Okay?
www.mdjacksonart.weebly.com
http://mdjackson.deviantart.com
http://community.imaginefx.com/fxpose/mdjacksons%5Fportfolio
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
...ARE YOU WARM, ARE YOU REAL, MONA LISA?
This is the Islesworth Mona Lisa.
For anyone with even a passing familiarity with DaVinci's masterpiece it is obvious that this is not the portrait that currently hangs in the Louvre Museum in Paris. For one, the woman is much younger than the iconic Mona Lisa of DaVinci. There are other differences as well. The canvas is wider and we can see more of the framing pillars behind the figure. The background is different.
The Isleworth Mona Lisa was discovered just before World War 1 by an art collector named Hugh Blaker in the home of a Somerset nobleman. Blaker bought the painting and took it to his studio in Isleworth, London, from which it takes its name.
Now, the appearance of a Mona Lisa is not that unusual. Many have painted copies of DaVinci's portrait. It is one of the most reproduced images in the world, after all. But there is a twist.
Blaker knew that Leonardo had started to paint Mona Lisa in 1503, but "left it unfinished". This is recounted by Leonardo's early biographer Giorgio Vasari. However, a fully finished painting of a "certain Florentine lady" surfaces again in 1517, shortly before Leonardo's death and in his private possession. The latter painting almost certainly is the same that now hangs in the Louvre.
So what happened to the earlier attempt? Well, Blaker figured that the Isleworth Mona Lisa was that earlier attempt. He and other supporters claimed it to be the unfinished Mona Lisa, made at least partially by Leonardo and originally handed over to its commissioner. That would mean that the Louvre Mona Lisa was a later version of the portrait made by Leonardo for his own use.
The Isleworth painting has changed hands a few times between then and now. It is currently owned by a Zurich group calling itself the Mona Lisa Foundation. They unveiled the painting recently and reiterated the claim that it is an earlier DaVinci version of the Mona Lisa portrait.
That claim, unsurprisingly, has provoked a number of reactions in the art world. Some have come forward to denounce the Isleworth painting as a forgery.
So what are we to make of this younger and prettier Mona Lisa? Is it an authentic Mona Lisa? Should it replace the portrait hanging in the Louvre? Wouldn't that be an appropriate comment on the age in which we live? The older, mature face gets replaced by one younger and prettier. That would be a sad story.
But here's a better story, and maybe a sadder one. Did Leonardo DaVinci fall in love with the young, pretty wife of Francesco del Giocondo when he was commissioned to paint her portrait? He would have been 51 in 1503 when Lisa Gherardini sat for him. She would have been 24 years old, a young wife, making a home with her wealthy cloth merchant husband, their second child newly born.Was the old painter sentimental enough to fall in love with her smile? The smile is certainly more evident in this earlier portrait. Did it haunt him through the years? Did young Lisa's face stay in his mind, aging gracefully in DaVinci's imagination until he was compelled to commit her likeness to canvas once more years later, older, sadder perhaps, with an enigmatic smile? Did he paint it from memory or did she sit for him again, one more time, years later -- just for him this time?
The later portrait, the one in the Louvre, was called by DaVinci "La Giaconda", which means "The Jocular One" A pun, perhaps? A play on the name Giocondo? Or was DaVinci obfuscating to hide the fact that he had the portrait of another man's wife in his possession? Was it love that compelled Davinci to paint La Giaconda? Was it a great and unfulfilled love that immortalized a young Florentine woman to the point that she is now arguably one of the most recognized faces in history?
We will never know, of course. This is just a story. But it is an appealing idea, isn't it? That it was love -- not money, or vanity, or the lust for fame or power -- but love that was responsible for the most famous painting in the world.
I've been here and there. I've drawn a lot of pictures. I've written a bit, too. I'm not good at this self-promotion thing. Look, you want to know about me? just visit these websites. Okay?
www.mdjacksonart.weebly.com
http://mdjackson.deviantart.com
http://community.imaginefx.com/fxpose/mdjacksons%5Fportfolio
Friday, September 21, 2012
A LESSON IN SUSPENSE
Portrait of Madame X, painted in 1884, is the informal title of a portrait by John Singer Sargent of a young socialite named Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau. Madame Gautreau was an American expatriate who married a French banker, and became notorious in Parisian high society for her beauty and rumored infidelities.
As it was originally painted the portrait caused a scandal because of one shoulder strap that was off the subject's shoulder. The portrait, which, you must remember, was merely canvas and paint, was the cause of much consternation among Paris society. There were calls for Sargent to remove the painting from the exhibition.
Imagine crowds of young Parisian men gathered around the canvas in breathless anticipation of the moment when gravity does it's thing and causes Madame X's dress to fall to the floor. Of the painting one critic wrote: "One more struggle and the lady will be free". It is sexual titillation at it's most piquant and it all happens in the mind of the viewer.
Above you see the painting as it was repainted by Sargent with the strap back in its safer position. Here a photo shows the painting as it hung at the salon of '84 with the strap off her shoulder:
With Sargent repainting the strap, he successfully took much of the sting out of the painting.
To see how the painting might have looked, take a look at an altered image done by Mike Pieczonka:
To me, the whole incident is amazing and shows just how powerful a painting can be. How provocative are these images made up of an arrangement of pigments! In and of itself the object is harmless, yet what it depicts enflames desire or outrage. Whether it is a Sargent portrait or a controversial comic in a French newspaper, images have amazing power.
And yet, as Robert Crumb observed almost 100 years later "It's only lines on paper, folks!"
I've been here and there. I've drawn a lot of pictures. I've written a bit, too. I'm not good at this self-promotion thing. Look, you want to know about me? just visit these websites. Okay?
www.mdjacksonart.weebly.com
http://mdjackson.deviantart.com
http://community.imaginefx.com/fxpose/mdjacksons%5Fportfolio
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED ON JULY 4TH, 1776?
There was no battle. There were no cannons. There were no muskets. That would come later.
On July 4th there was just the document.
On July 4th there was just the document.
The thirteen colonies were united behind an idea: No taxation without representation. The British Crown, represented by King George III (The same monarch from The Madness of King George, father to Blackadder's Prince Regent) responded to this demand by sending 700 British warships to Nova Scotia, showing in no uncertain terms that not only had he rejected that demand but intended to play rough to enforce it.
That changed things. If the colonies were going to resist a military occupation and the leaders were to risk being hanged as traitors, they might as well do it for something substantial.
Independence.
As they say: Shit just got real.
In June, 1776 British patrol frigates were skirmishing in the Delaware River; late in the month British troops landed on Staten Island. The American reaction to all this was a muddle of confusion. A few were delighted, most of the rest were amazed or appalled.
There is far less muddle about what happened on July 2, 1776, publicly proclaimed two days later. Adopting a resolution written by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, the Thirteen Colonies stated they had now clarified their goals in the controversy with the British monarchy.
Fighting had been going on for a year in Massachusetts, and Lord Howe's fleet had set sail a month before the Declaration, actually landing on Staten Island at just about the same time as the Fourth of July.
So what actually happened on the 4th?
Contrary to popular mythology, there was no ceremonial signing of the Declaration on July 4, 1776. After Congress approved the wording of the text on July 4, a copy was sent to be printed. As president, Hancock may have signed the document that was sent to the printer, but this is uncertain because that document is lost, perhaps destroyed in the printing process. The printer produced the first published version of the Declaration, the widely distributed Dunlap broadside. Hancock, as President of Congress, was the only delegate whose name appeared on the broadside, although the name of Charles Thomson, secretary of the Continental Congress, but not a delegate, was also on it. This meant that until a second broadside was issued six months later with all of the signers listed, Hancock was the only delegate whose name was publicly attached to the treasonous document. Hancock sent a copy of the Dunlap broadside to George Washington, instructing him to have it read to the troops "in the way you shall think most proper".
Eventually there would be 56 signatories to that declaration but that would take to almost the end of September.
So when someone asks you for your "John Hancock" on something, think about the historical John Hancock, the first man to publicly declare himself a rebel to the crown. Signing that paper was as good as signing his own death warrant had things not turned out as they did, and for a while his was the only one. Think about what an act of bravery signing that paper entailed. No, he didn't hunt vampires, but he was a brave man nonetheless.
So next time stop and think about how important it is when you sign your "John Hancock" to something.
Happy Fourth of July to all my American readers! You have an amazing country with a singularly colourful history.
I've been here and there. I've drawn a lot of pictures. I've written a bit, too. I'm not good at this self-promotion thing. Look, you want to know about me? just visit these websites. Okay?
www.mdjacksonart.weebly.com
http://mdjackson.deviantart.com
http://community.imaginefx.com/fxpose/mdjacksons%5Fportfolio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





