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.