Article Author Jon Juanma
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=79219 
The work that Peter will discuss today Paul Rubens, is called "Self Portrait with Isabella Brandt in the garden of love." Oil on canvas, wood is in the Upper Gallery in Munich and has some measures 178 cm high x 136.5 cm wide. Rubens was a great painter of the Baroque, was able to imbue her works of dramatic compositions, the movement of their anatomy and the complex represented veils of subtle changes in tone, perfectly suited to the baroque piety after the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church sought to inject their propaganda works. Its artistic zenith got no doubt impressive "Descencimientos of the Cross", a theme repeatedly discussed and reached the rank of master for his strength, pathos and powerful scenery of court "chiaroscuro." The paint discussing today, we focus on an example of self-sharing, it appears the artist himself with his first wife, Isabella Brandt, daughter of a noble of Antwerp. According to various bourgeois art historians, the picture shows the happy couple, united by love and affection, with classical symbolic references in the iconography of the era, such as honeysuckle plant that is in front of the couple and symbolized by the time (and minority religions circles could understand) love and faithfulness . Beyond these platitudes iconographic, easily recognizable to anyone who can and wants to study the usual iconography of the time specified, the Baroque, the most interesting is to enter the third reading stage method of image analysis of Panofsky: the iconic stage. At this stage highlight / outline the meaning of the image in its historical context, its real function. To do this we build on Marxism and critical lessons art specialist John Berger.
Many liberal historians Rubens wonder why, in this picture, gave less attention to the detailed representation of objects and qualities of the same (brightness, visual textures of the fabrics, etc). These authors can not discard their false conception of "art for art" of the worldview of their own class to
normally belong: the petty bourgeoisie. This world view not only apply to their daily lives but to falsify history itself, consciously or unconsciously, and adapting it to their interests, concerns or lack thereof. For this reason, will never understand something obvious to people who seek the truth, and an analysis not condescending to anything or anyone in the work of art. And in this case, the fact is that the simple reason that Rubens took pains both reliable and believable recreation of the qualities of the dresses they wore to him and his wife was because I wanted to make a display of material wealth could possess. All those expensive clothes, and his wife, "good family", were only possessions he deserved to be immortalized on canvas, paper illustrating the properties of public-owner.
In those years there were no cameras photographic and Rubens (33 years and upstroke) needed to be publicly proclaimed his canvas (people of their economic and social circle) what he was worth half of what he could have and in fact had (you know " Therefore you are worth "of capitalism maximum current and past).
So despite the lack of poetry that this may pose to the bourgeois art critics, the fact is that Rubens painted this way because he wanted to boast of good clothes and status, just as if a rich man of our time photographed next to your pool or Ferrari. Unfortunate but true, both yesterday and today. Suzi said Gablick
As for understand a work of art, we must also understand its social function in their historical context. Real social function, not what we want to see or that we are officially held up as true, I'd say.
Rubens was a senior diplomat and perhaps the most sought after artist of his time. Precisely the year that made this picture, the painter was hired as court painter of Archduke Albert and his wife Isabel, English governors in the Netherlands. The agreement freed him from the rules of the (still) strong unions and exempted him from paying taxes, in addition to receiving an annual base salary of 500 guilders, excluding commissions (an ox at the time cost 90 guilders and a good portrait is charged about 60 guilders, when according to Arnold Hauser in his prime Rubens earned 100 guilders per working day). addition Rubens could make a huge work thanks to his studio painting, in which manufacturing methods applied in the organization of artistic work. The careful selection of first-class specialized artists as Van Dyck and Jordaens (who came to perform in some cases the whole picture except the hands and faces) also helped to accept large numbers of orders in the near future. On the other hand, say that in his workshop had a number not less than one hundred employees and slaves who helped with tasks painful in the paintings. Only in this way means that he attributed to the Flemish painter authorship of a huge amount of pictures, well above the most prolific authors of his time.
Rubens was a great artist, great teacher, but also a man of high standing of his time, a senior official of the Court surrounded by important influences advantage of them knew how to push as a painter and live in wealth typical of a princely fortune, which among other things, he made his famous palace built workshop in Antwerp and live a life in luxury. A smart guy that Rubens, perhaps not as rogue / rogue / face-hard as Miquel Barceló but certainly much better and more confident painter author. As evidence of a button, in the words of their own aristocratic flamenco:
"My talent is such that no undertaking, however great and varied in its object it is, could overcome my confidence in myself"
In confidence, of course not . Rest in peace.
0 comments:
Post a Comment