Yale Center for British Art

I was not really crazy about going to the Yale Center for British Art. From my previous visits to the other museums I already knew that British art was not my favorite, at all. I had already told myself I would not like this trip, so naturally I could not find any pieces I liked.

I went straight to the fourth floor because that was the floor I could take pictures on. I walked around and thought to myself, “yep just what I expected”. I felt the work was boring and lifeless. To me, it was just a bunch of portraits. I could not find one piece that jumped out at me. Then I found John Hamilton Mortimer’s A Caricature Group and thought, “well now that’s funny”. But nothing really jumping yet.


Then I saw James Barry’s The Education of Achilles and thought to myself, “now that is beautiful”. I loved the symbolism in the work. Chiron teaches Achilles art which is represented bt the lyre; Math is the Euclidean diagram on the floor; and then war which is the shield and spare.


As I kept walking around the top floor I walked into a room and literally stopped in my tracks. It was William Dobson’s portrait of what is thought to be the Streatfeild family. First thing I saw was the mother’s eyes. It was as if she was looking right into my soul. I was shaken a little. Then you glance to the top right and a pile of skulls rests on a ledge. Well, this certainly wasn’t your average family portrait so I decided right at that moment that this was the piece I wanted to write about.


The description next to the painting doesn’t give much information. It reads this family was from Chiddingston, Kent. Richard and his wife Ann were the wealthiest members of the region’s gentry. Then it mentions that it is really difficult to depict what the symbolism is to the mother holding the child and pointing at him.



Or why the smaller child is holding the berries.



It does say that the skulls on the broken pedestal could represent the premature death of children.




One very interesting fact that the description card does say is, this painting was done in 1645. Oil on canvas. Dobson died in 1646 and did not complete this work. It is believed that the children on the left were painted by someone else. It is not so much the artist that intrigues me now. It is the story of the family.

So I went looking online for anything on the Streatfeild family. I was thinking this shouldn’t be too hard because I have dates, places, names…easy right? Wrong! There were a few Richard Streatfeilds who married a woman named Ann. So I had to dig a little deeper and search by dates. Finally I found it!

Richard Streatfield married Anne (with an E) Terry. They had the following children:
Henry was born in 1639 (possibly the child who the mother is holding and pointing to). Susanna was born in 1640 but died the same year (possibly the reason for the skulls).
Alice’s date of birth is unknown, William was born in 1645, Thomas was born in 1649,
Robert was born in 1650, John was born in 1656 and Stephen’s date of birth is unknown.

I am thinking that if Dobson died in 1646 then the original painting must have been just of Henry, his parents and the skulls. Why more than one skull? I am not too sure. Maybe Mrs. Streatfield had miscarriages as well. Then it is believed that someone else finished this painting after Dobson died, which makes sense because Alice (DOB unknown), William and Thomas were born after 1646. So my thoughts are, maybe Alice is under her father’s hand and William is holding the cherries.

If the painting was finished by someone else, I can only wonder, how was the father’s hand painted originally? Or was that not finished as well? Also, why is the father looking away and not directly ahead? Why is the mother pointing to Henry? Why does Henry to appear to be half dressed? The website I visited, www.chiddingstone.net, does not give any further information. This site was just a family tree of sorts, which can be wrong.

This portrait was the only painting in all my visits that literally made me stop in my tracks. I was so interested in finding out any information on this family, I couldn’t wait to get home! Out of all the works I have seen I really think I like this the most. Reason is, and bear with me, it isn’t modern (didn't expect that coming from me). It is so old that the answers are not readily available. No matter how much “googling” I do, I won’t find out what this portrait means. I like that. I like being able to interpret this the way I want to.

I see this as any family in any time. The mother who is holding her eldest son, who like so many boys, is misbehaving and she gives him a finger point! The point to say, stop it now! The middle child is the daddy’s little girl, who is always on her best behavior. The baby is too young to sit still and look ahead so cherries keep him quiet. The proud father with his head held high. Finally, the skulls, which represent the sadness that all parents feel when they lose a child.



So at first glance, I felt a little frightened by this painting. Then after learning about this family and interrupting my own way, I think it is the most beautiful and sentimental pieces I have seen.

Wadsworth

Today I took my trip the Wadsworth in Hartford. I was very excited about this trip because I just purchased my new Canon Powershot SD950! I couldn't wait to try it out. (Click on the pictures and check out the details...12 Mega Pixels!!!!!) I love Sunday visits. It isn't really busy which allowed me to look at everything without feeling the pressure of someone waiting behind you.



There were many paintings that grabbed me this time, but I decided I wanted to write about something different. So I picked Stanton Macdonald-Wright's American Synchromy No. 1. I wanted to pick something that's more abstract rather than traditional.


Along with Moran Russell, Wright created this new style of painting called "Synchromism" in 1912. Wright compared this modern art form to a musical symphony. The color schemes are created with a musical scale in mind. By changing the tones you are changing the rhythm. During this time, this style of art was very new to Modern art form. When I look at this piece I feel it is way before its time. I assumed this piece was created in the the 70's or 80's based on it's wild "retro" look.



This particular piece was created in 1919. He used oil on a canvas. The painting shows a very muscular man with his arm draped over his face. Macdonald-Wright used yellows, reds and oranges to show highlights, and blues, greens and purples to show the definition of his body.


I love the definition of the jaw line. It seems as though Macdonald-Wright effortlessly created this part of the portrait but it shows such strength and masculinity. The details of the arm is also very breathtaking. I liked how he uses the cooler colors to show the details of the muscle.



I wanted to use this piece for this weeks writing because it is abstract. It truly makes you think about what you are looking at. It is beauty and strength wrapped in one. When looking at it from a far, the reds stand out so much to me. I just see white the reds and black that highlight and define this piece. But when you look closer, the blues and greens are what stand out. It shows the true power of this portrait.

Yale University Art Gallery: Photo Album

I took my trip to Yale this weekend. I must say I was very proud of myself when I walked in. I immediately went to the 3rd floor to see all the Modern Art. This style is my favorite so far. I was excited when I saw a pieces by James Rosenquist and Chuck Close. I felt as though, I was finally "getting it". That was until a heard a soft voice say to me, "excuse me miss, you can not take pictures on the 4th floor. Just the other three levels". Opps. Down to the 1st floor.

I saw this great Picasso that I wanted to take a few shots of. Then. "Excuse me miss, no photography on this floor." Feeling foolish for not realizing that these exhibitions didn't belong to the museum, I took out my pen and notebook and started to take some notes. Then. "Excuse me miss, you can not take notes with pen in here, let me get you a pencil". I can only sit here and laugh! Not only am I learning about Art but I am slowly but surely learning museum etiquette.

This week I am posting a photo album of the two Edward Hopper pieces I really liked. I chose these two because I really liked the "lights and shadows" work I did in Photography class, and they are truly inspiring.


Front Entrance


Edward Hopper's Sunlight in a Cafe. 1958 Oil on Canvas




Details of the sunlight on the window sill.




Edward Hopper's Rooms by the Sea. 1951 Oil on Canvas.


Closer detail of the sunlight shinning through.



Light on the back wall implying there possibly a window in another room.

Florence Griswold Museum

On a beautiful Sunday morning Jared and I set out again on another museum adventure. This time we went to the Florence Griswold Museum in Old Lyme. I was very excited about going to the Griswold because on Sundays you can paint on the grounds. I could not think of a better place to bring Jared. We both love to paint!


When we first got there I was a little confused. So many little buildings, not really sure where to go. But we found the path that leads to the Krieble Gallery.


They had a wonderful exhibit in this building. Picturing Health: Norman Rockwell and the Art of Illustration. But because the gallery didn’t own the collections we could not take pictures. I was very disappointed at this time. I love Rockwell’s work! When I was a kid, my pediatrician had several pieces made by Rockwell. I hated the doctor’s office, but I found some comfort in the pictures. The kids weren’t crying…maybe I shouldn’t either.

So a little upset we proceeded to the Griswold House. At this point I didn’t know much about the history of this museum. We entered the house and were greeted by two very nice women. Again, I was informed that picture taking isn’t allowed. I did mention that I was working on piece for school and one lady whispered, “okay, go for it dear”. I was so excited that I could take pictures! So we started the tour of the house.



She informed me that Miss Florence inherited this home when all her other siblings had died. She also inherited the debts. So in order to be able to make a living, she took people into her home. She took in an artist named Henry Ward Ranger, who brought several other artist that next year. Her home became a boardinghouse for artist.





Our guide left us to explore by ourselves and we headed up stairs where most of the artwork is located. The first picture that caught my eye was Henry Ward Rangers, Autumn Woodlands. I loved the highlighted gold tones he used to really make the woods seem “magical”. I felt this this piece was nice but I was still waiting for something to jump out at me. Then I saw Lucien Abrams', The Orchard, and I fell in love! This piece was created in 1916, when he stayed at Miss Forence's home.




This style of work is called Impressionism. Painting that does not elaborate on details but rather focuses on a feeling or tone of the scenery. When I look at this picture, I see a beautiful spring day with a slight breeze blowing the branches. Abrams used bold colored oil paints on this canvas. Like the red details in the tree. This is what primarily drew me to this piece. What wonderful accent to add to the tree. It makes it shout, "look at me!"




The details in the leaves are so serene. Like they are dancing in a gentle breeze that comes and goes as it pleases. Some leaves look to be reaching towards the blue and white sky, like arms stretching towards the sun. Others look like they are resting and relaxing, exhausted from the winds workout.



You can look at this piece and feel a flow. The river in the background, flowing in the same directions as the branches. The trunk of the tree stretching upwards like the tall grass below it. The inviting shadows that lay under the trees seem to be saying, “come sit, rest here”. You cannot look at this painting and not feel at peace. At ease with everything around you.



What a beautiful representation of simpler times. When you could relax and take it all in, with no worries. How nice it must have been to be able to see a vision and portray it with such beauty and emotion. I found myself wanting that peace. Just a few moments in my days were there are no phones ringing, no people yelling, no place to be. Allowing all senses to enjoy a perfect day. The smell of the flowers growing from the grass that tickles your legs. The sound of the river, crackling and bubbling, draws your eyes to the sight of little sparkles that dance on the river. No better way to spend the day in my opinion.


What is absolutely wonderful about this museum and that you can have that one day to loose yourself. You have a chance to grab a canvas, some paints and a few brushes and enjoy your time like the artists did when Miss Florence opened her doors. So that is just what we did! We were both so excited. We grabbed our supplies and headed out! Should we paint the little purple flowers in the garden? How about the sunflowers? How about the barn house? Then that dancing sparkle hits my eye…we head down to the river. We sit in two chairs and lose ourselves for an hour. What an inspiring hour it was.

NYC: The Met!!!

I took my stepson to the Metropolitan Museum of Art a few weeks ago. I was completely amazed at the size of the building alone. Feeling overwhelmed yet excited we ventured around the first level looking at many different works of Greek and Roman art. After about a half hour of aimless wandering, we smartened up and rented the audio-guided headphones. It was then; I was able to truly enjoy my time at the Met.

You will experience almost every emotion possible when you visit the Met. It is amazing that a picture or a sculpture can make you feel so many emotions just from first glance. I decided that for this class I would only write about the works that truly made me feel “something”. So for my first piece I chose James Rosenquist’s Gift Wrapped Doll #16. You encounter this painting in a stairway in the Modern Art section of the museum. My first emotion was, “Oh my good Lord!” It is disturbing, yet beautiful. Chaotic, yet perfectly painted to look just like a photograph.




We found ourselves looking closer, just to make sure it was not a photograph. Could this really be paint on a canvas?? Yes, she was paint. A perfect blend of colors created this amazing work of art. I was in awe!



What am I seeing? What comes to mind first? An older brother torturing his sister’s dolls with cellophane?! Then it hits me. Anxiety. Entrapment. Prison. But to a child who is naive, there is still a beautiful smile. The lines of the cellophane are amazing! Reds, pinks, yellows, with the perfect touch of white to give the “shinny” look to it.




The eye on my left I am drawn to. It appears that there is a crease in the wrap, which sets in my feeling of anxiety, blurred vision from the inside. What a feeling. Her mouth is covered and closed but still smiling.




The right side of her face is very disorted. This side of the cellophane is not smooth at all! It is also very red as if the light is shining on the left side and this side has more shadow to it.



Rosenquist uses thin dark lines to show depth and the movement of the cellophane. Technically the work is unlike any other I have ever seen. Creatively it is a masterpiece! What is behind this work? What is the inspiration? Motivation? I am eager to learn.



I know what I feel but what did Rosenquist feel? What provoked this work of art and the other 36 just like her? After researching him, I found out that his Gift Wrapped Doll series was a response to the AIDS crisis. These works were made in 1992-1993 during a time when the epidemic was at its highest. It is a representation of feeling trapped by the disease, hopeless and despair. There is nothing inspiring about a doll wrapped in cellophane.




Rosenquist is one of the great artist of the American Pop Art Movement. This was truly a very strong message to this severe issue. This piece says so much with so little. It exposes the stigma of the times. What I found to be very interesting was he used dolls from what seems to be the 50’s or the 60’s on works created in the 90’s. Why didn’t he use a more modern looking doll? I can only guess that he wanted the pieces to stand out. Many of the dolls aren’t really childlike. You know that they belong to a child, but their faces are very mature. Most wearing make up. I believe he is exposing the fact that AIDS effects the young and the old.

So we walk up the stairs to continue our journey through the Met, but I am left feeling a bit raw. Feeling sad for the dolls and for the artist who envisioned such a site. The overwhelming size of the portrait is what grabbed me and I can’t seem to let that image out of my mind. Even Chuck Closes’s portrait of Lucas, which I considered writing about, couldn’t completely take my mind off the little dolls trapped forever. My research on the dolls has put it into perspective for me. I get it. How simple yet so complicated. How beautiful, yet so frightening.

Hello Everyone

Hi Everyone!

I am really excited about this course! Yeahh!

Well a little about me. I live in Hamden and this is my 2nd Mod with AMC. I am really getting the hang of things now and I am ready to roll!

I can't wait to work with everyone! Good Luck