Monday, October 31, 2005

Family Portraits

Adolf Wissel vs. Norman Rockwell

While doing research on color and the history of modern art, I came across this website which talks about Hitler's abhorrence for modern art, so much so that he would set up degenerate art exhibitions to ridicule these painters.

Instead, he wanted art that glorified his Aryan concept.

Now, this type of commissioned art had nothing to do with 'artistic' requirements, but rather with ways to decimate Nazi propaganda.

Here is a strange, claustrophobic, family portrait, which is certainly meant to promote the 'happy, Aryan family life.' It fails on many levels, although artistically, it is an exquisitely designed piece.

Farm Family From Kahlenberg. By Adolf Wissel, 1939

The strangest thing about this portrait is the little boy, who is not quite in the center, and who looks directly at the viewer. Normally, one associates such a bold stare with a mature or heroic character. Not a disconcertingly young, and audacious boy.

But there are many more things going on in this picture:

1. There is no grandfather in the painting, which I'm sure is quite a deliberate omission. As though to say, we don't need our past, but must look into the future alone. It it the child-bearing women (the grandmother is present) who seem to matter more. In other words, create the world anew, by destroying it first - quite in league with the götterdämmerung for a new dawn.


I have manipulated the top picture to centralize the boy.
The bottom picture is the original.
(Click on images to view larger sizes without lines)


2. The boy is not really in the center of the original painting. If he were 'designed' thus, he would be visually separate him from everyone else. He would not fit in with his protective father, nor with the nurturing mother, but remain as a direct and lonely focal point

Ironically, the picture with the centered boy is also the more claustrophobic, and it is the less successful design of the two. The artist was correct to compose his painting in the original manner.

Yet, this original composition, as well as being true to design, is really true to sentiment and psychology as well.

As the visually centered character, the boy would then really be on his own. I would suspect that the painter is projecting his own immaturity and lack of independence by avoiding this central position for the boy. But the painter still doesn't underestimate the aggressive and audacious character of the boy, making him stare at us with a bold and insolent stare.

This goes quite well with the National Socialists, who never wanted the father figure too far away, being unable to mature into independent and responsible men. But, they were aggressive, demanding and ruthless little boys at heart.

3. The women seem to have an even stronger presence here. The father's connection is with the old woman, presumably his mother. Not with his father, who is absent. And the rather burly young girl on the left is busy with her books, suggesting the rather masculine role many Nazi women were to play later on. Of course the wife is the child bearer, producing both the young boy (future leader) and the young girls (a future feminist and a future mother).

4. There is no centered visual hierarchy of people here. Although the father dominates a mini-pyramid of his daughter (to the left) and his son, he is in the background. His wife seems to have some more prominence, being in the foreground. And the father's timid eye-contact with the grandmother seems to make her his center. As mentioned, the young boy seems to dominate the scene.

5. The colors are warm browns and yellows, and there appears to be a lively dusk sky behind. But any warmth has be negated by the claustrophobic arrangements of the people in their dark clothes and dour expressions. It really is to close the end of the day/world.

6. For a farm family, there is very little farm food around. Whatever is displayed is consigned to the small left-hand corner of the picture.

7. The horizon seems to have been flattened out as though we’re in some stage-set interior with a backdrop, full of fantasy and manipulation.

Now contrast this with the Rockwell painting.

Freedom from Want. By Norman Rockwell, 1943

1. The grandfather is the center, both pictorially and actually - there is no ambiguity about that.

2. The picture is designed in the classic pyramidal fashion, with the important figures at the top of the pyramid (grandfather and grandmother) and the rest of family widening out to the base.

3. Unlike the Wissel whose nature which we cannot seem to reach, Rockwell has brought nature into to the family, with the turkey, fruits and vegetables all laid out on the table. Rockwell's Nature is really abundant.

4. All the food follows the central and important axis, with the grandfather at the top. A true thanksgiving for the abundant fruits of the land.

5. Although we are indoors, there is a sense of space and light. The elongated perspective of the white table connects with the bright window at the back which promises to take us out into the sunny mid-day exterior.

6. Finally, this family seems to be fully enjoying the moment. And even the one person looking at us is doing so with a sense of fun and mischief.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Geometry in "Pride and Prejudice"

The Interactions of Society

Jane Austen's novel "Pride and Prejudice" , also enacted in various movie versions - the 1940 version with Laurence Olivier being a classic - is full of geometry.

During the frequent social dances which bring different families and groups together, dances are a common way for people to interact. Dancers are paired off with diagonally opposite partners, then break loose to join those next to them, and travel down lines with yet another. Partners weave in and out of lines and squares to complete the dance. The music prompts you when to start, stop and change directions and patterns.

Finally, at the very end, like a lovely carpet, all the patterns settle in perfect harmony and geometry. Everyone, and everything, is just where they belong.

Such dances are a microcosm of what happens in society itself. The rules of the game are dictated by subtle meters and melodies, decorum and restraint are required, conversation and interaction with partners and groups are carefully choreographed. And the final outcome is an unobtrusive and polite pairing off of the right couples.



Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Rembrandt's Gentle Men

Beauty and Humanity


"Syndics of the Draper's Guild", 1661

Rembrandt was commisioned to paint many group portriats, unique in 17th century Holland, of guild members, hospitals, town councils and other civic institutions.

Rembrandt paints the group portrait of the "Staalmeesters", also known as "Syndics of the Draper's Guild", while in a meeting.

His unique touch brings out more than just a members' meeting.

- Rembrandt has submerged the protagonists with a gentler light and avoids stark contrasts and sharp demarcations, more common in his earlier paintings.

- This blending of contrasts makes the men to appear more gentle – they are not tormented by dilemmas of Biblical proportions. They are but wealthy citizens trying to bring about civility and order through their dutiful influence.

- At the same time, these are men who make difficult and sometimes harsh decisions, and the caution and wisdom in their faces recognizes that they need to always be alert to their surroundings.

- Technically, Rembrandt achieves this mixture of gentleness and caution with the natural chiaroscuros provided by the by the dark clothes and the contrasting white collars.

Their illumined (enlightened, intelligent) faces are so lit up by the reflected light from the white collars. These faces are not over-flooded with direct ligth, but are lit with the more subdued secondary reflections off the white collars.

Here the costumes are natural props in aiding Rembrandt's perennial technique of playing with light and dark contrasts, light and dark moods, light and dark personalities, and other psychological polarities.

- The rhythm of the white collars take us from one side to the other in gentle curves. Here, Rembrandt seems to want us to see the men one after the other, each individually important, rather than all of them at once.

- There are muted golden tinges everywhere, from the material in front to the panelling in the back wall. This shows us that despite their rather austere clothing, and probably equally restrained passions, these are men of wealth and financial and social security.

- Rembrandt makes us feel as though someone surprised these men with an unexpected entry. They are looking up at the visitor, and one Guild member is standing up to acknowledge (confront) the visitor. This puts a spontaneous, and familiar, tone to the painting, which a formal sitting couldn't.

- Since we cannot see this 'unexpected guest', then could it be us - the viewers? In such a manner, Rembrandt includes us into his painting, and joins us, even several hundred years later, with his gentle men.


Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Imaginary Space

The Paintings of Christian Artist Thomas Kinkade

The Evangelical Outpost Blog has a very interesting post on famous Christian artist Thomas Kinkade.

While browsing through the links (and further comments) this post describes what I've identified as the problem with imagined space.

There is a new crop of painters who use a variety of images, many of which they don't draw or paint 100% (I suspect there is a lot of tracing going on and that copy machines and computer downloads are quite active), to create these non-existent places.

I think Kandinsky was aiming for such non-existent places in his vaguely familiar, abstracted paintings. They remind us of something (an animal, a plant, a city?) but we're at a loss to say what.


Kandinsky, Compostition VIII, 1923

Of course, these artists forfeit the long-established perspective drawings, proportions, realistic colorings, and even coherent themes and stories in order to bring us their utopias (or dystopias).


Kristine Moran, Checkpoint, 2005

From a commenter called 'Lizzie' on Kindade's art posted at Hollywood Jesus News Blog:

At first glance, [Kinkade's]subjects look well drawn, realistically rendered, and believably three-dimensional--what one would expect from any art school graduate…I found misaligned perspectives, awkward proportions, inexplicable light sources, and strange juxtapositions of architecture and landscape. His scenery has no relationship to geographical reality…His churches are buried in deep forests and hover at the edge of swamps, without paths, their front doors, blocked by streams that in any remotely real geography would immediately flood the buildings…

I find it especially telling in the painting of the nature churches, where there seems to be no way for any human to access the church itself. One is cut off by dense forests, giant mountains, and rivers…
Where people are depicted they are awkward, stick-like and blurred: unspecific, faceless figures, barely three dimensional and lacking the color, depth, weight, movement, that he gives inanimate objects…Professional artists spend years trying to capture the human body...

In almost all of his paintings the parts do not fit together naturally… This general mismatching is patched over with the stippled points of light and deliberately brilliant colors to create an artificially uniform effect.



Thomas Kinkade, Streams of Living Water

Now, an interesting question would be: "Why would a 'Christian' artist spend so much time creating his utopia (heaven, paradise?) on earth?"