![This faded scrap of paper is the British Guiana One-Cent Magenta from 1856. Only one exists in the world, and it sold for $9.4 million, making it one of the most valuable objects per gram ever sold at auction. [1200x900]](https://preview.redd.it/woejvawr2w3h1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=7d806e77bb81b9b5da96d3192d535874af238519)
r/ArtHistory
![This faded scrap of paper is the British Guiana One-Cent Magenta from 1856. Only one exists in the world, and it sold for $9.4 million, making it one of the most valuable objects per gram ever sold at auction. [1200x900]](https://preview.redd.it/woejvawr2w3h1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=7d806e77bb81b9b5da96d3192d535874af238519)
Edward Poynter and Ancient Worlds - Set of 5 Paintings
What really captivates me about Poynter is the almost tactile specificity of his paintings. Across all of them the materials somehow feel physically distinct. Stone feels like stone. Fabric feels soft and heavy. Skin, wood and metal all seem to have their own presence. The hide stretched across near the catapult genuinly still feels like it once belonged to a living animal. Even the abs of the men arming it feel unusually observed. In Israel in Egypt I keep looking at the body language. In The Ionian Dance it is the eye contact and clothing. Queen of Sheba seems filled with almost imperceptable details everywhere you look. Then The Ides of March uses lighting and shadow to create this quiet foreboding atmosphere.
How does Poynter make materials feel so physically distinct from one another? Did he actually study how bodies move under physical strain for paintings like The Catapult? I am also curious how realistic his renditions actually were. Were they intended to be faithful reconstructions of antiquity? Or did Poynter deliberately make them more fantastical and visually compelling for viewers at the time?
One thing to note is that Poynter has so many unique artworks, which I think are quite interesting. His use of the human form, lighting, and intense scenes, such as shipwrecks or fights, is fascinating and creative.
How do you remember these art pieces?
Hello, so I stumbled upon this whole Mandela effect rabbit hole and I found 3 art pieces,which I remember differently. The easiest explanation is,that these were always like they are now and I am a fool,but I would like to hear Your opinion. I do not have an art major,I just love art history and I remember these pieces differently.
Rodins The Thinker - I always remembered it with close fist
Da Vincis Mona Lisa - I thought,that the woman did not smile,she had a neutral,almost frowning face,but now you can see a little smile
Michelangelos David - the heart shaped pupils are weird,especially considered that Michelangelo was an anatomical realist
Piet Mondrian's Composition (C) III on a hat
Hello everyone! I wish to not be removed for advertising but I thought it be cool to share. I want to share a cool project I worked on. This is Composition (C) III on a hat. Most people usually put Composition III, Mondrian's most famous of his works. But I felt if you put it on a hat, the center stitching will distort the red square. But with Composition (C) ooooh boy. Mondrian was extremely proportional with his geometric grid. There's this even ratio that's separated by 70% white space, leaving small patches of color pushed inwards than outwards with his later work.
Behind this hat is a reproduction of C.III and we can see in this comparison how a grid functions proportionate to symmetry. Compositions A and II are extremely chaotic and I think looks terrible on apparel on my opinion. What do you guys think?
Famous paintings you hate, I'll start: The Resurrected Christ by Titian. It just looks so unappealing...
Thieves steal priceless Antonello da Messina masterpieces: why did they leave two of them on a wall outside the museum? And how is it possible that the guards didn't notice anything?
On the night of August 15, an as-yet-unidentified gang of thieves stole Antonello da Messina's Polyptych of San Gregorio and a double-sided panel depicting the Madonna and the Pietà, also attributed to the artist, both housed at the Regional Interdisciplinary Museum of Messina. The works, of inestimable artistic value and worth several tens of millions of euros, were removed from their supports, and the armored case protecting the panel was forced open.
Everything suggests a heist meticulously planned by a gang of experts, yet it remains unclear why two of the works were abandoned on a low outer wall of the museum during the getaway: the two polyptych panels depicting Saint Benedict and Saint Gregory the Great. These very works, spared by the thieves, could potentially contain clues useful for identifying them, and investigators are not ruling out any lead at this time.
The theft has further heightened attention on the issue of museum security, given that it emerged that, despite the alarm going off and the video surveillance system capturing the theft as it unfolded, the four security guards present at the site noticed nothing until a passerby reported having found the Antonello da Messina works propped against the low wall outside the museum.
Is art object or idea
I'm not an artist nor do i have the cultural capital to be a critic but this is a question that has puzzled me for a long time.
I'm not sure this is the right sub for this question, so feel free to direct me elsewhere if needed.
In the late 90's in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia a public installation was commissioned by the government. It was to be placed at the northern end of the Stuart Hwy which crosses the country from north to south. The sculpture was to be a copy of the highway, a sort of twisting pipe about 3 to 4m high. It was never made.
The local newspaper published an artist's impression of the sculpture on the front page and for the next few weeks the letters to the editor and newspaper articles lambasted the design. Government cancelled the commission (artist still got paid). Now the "pig's dick" (as it was called by the NT News) is still the most commented public art piece in the Territory although it was never created.
Ever since I've thought about the episode and the nature of art.
I understand ephemeral art, but it at least exists for a moment in time.
As I understand art is meant to challenge and produce engagement, which this idea did in spades, but it never existed.
Does art need an object or can it just be an idea?
Was the "pig's dick" the greatest piece of public art in the Territory's history without ever having been made?
[Academic] British Museum visitor survey - have you ever visited? (5-8 mins, 18+)
Hi everyone, I'm a Master's student at Universite Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne (IREST), researching how the British Museum communicates with its visitors.
If you've ever visited the British Museum, I'd really appreciate 5-8 minutes of your time. The survey is anonymous, answers are used for academic research only, and there's a short optional section at the end if you'd be open to a follow-up interview.
This is for my Master's dissertation and the deadline is approaching, so every response genuinely helps right now.
Link: https://forms.gle/fYZSd7qofxjgS4Rg9
Thank you so much!
Gold, four-winged Mut armlet from the tomb of Amanishakheto (First Century CE) (Munich Antiquarium)
In Nubian temples, several goddesses can, like their Egyptian counterparts, also be seen bearing avian features. As the consort of Amun-Re, one of the main gods of the Nubian pantheon, the goddess Mut is represented wearing a vulture headdress. It was Isis, the mother of Horus, however, who became the most prominent Kushite goddess, overshadowing Mut by the Meroitic period.
Like the Kushite goddess Amesemi (see below), both goddesses are frequently shown with one or two pairs of wings attached to their back and arms, thus emphasizing their protective role (fig. 1.8).
Protection was also provided by a vulture with outstretched wings, akin to the Egyptian goddess Nekhbet, or by a falcon, both birds being represented as hovering over the king and queen, ready to smite their enemies.
Gods, kings, queens, officials, and priests were further wrapped in feathered dresses, or in garments meticulously decorated with a falcon or vulture that shielded their flanks, shoulders, chest, or head, thus emphasizing the connection between the divine and the human (fig. 1.9).
Some rulers even wear a crown surmounted by a birds. By donning this regalia, they evoked the goddess Amesemi, the lion god Apedemak's consort, who is distinguished by a modius headdress topped with one or sometimes two falcons, whose function and origin remain unclear.
During the Meroitic period, the vulture could also be represented in temples as a scavenger or on small objects, such as signet rings, pendants, and bells, as plucking the eyes of fallen enemies (fig. 1.10). These motifs highlighted the prowess of kings and queens on the battlefield and made the vulture another powerful royal symbol alongside the lion.
———
Source: https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/Publications/ISACMP/isacmp4.pdf
Daniel in the Lion’s Den - Set of 6 Differing Artist Visions
I am really drawn to Rivière and Rubens’ capturing of the emotion on the faces of the lions. It feels weighty and almost visceral. There is something captivating about Daniel’s calm demeanour and the sense of quiet authority he seems to hold over the lions. That contrast feels especially powerful, and I wonder what it would actually be like to be there, surrounded by the sights, smells, sounds, and presence of these animals.
It is interesting how much the interpretations differ while Daniel and the lions remain so immediately recognizable. Daniel’s age changes, the number of lions changes, and their expressions and proximity to him change as well. Even the balance of fear and serenity feels different from one painting to another. Those variations seem important because they change where the emotional gravity of the scene sits.
I am interested in learning what specifically about this subject captivated artists across so many centuries. Was part of the appeal the opportunity to study lion anatomy and expression, or was it more about the dramatic and psycological tension between danger and Daniel’s composure? There is something almost ineffable about that contrast.
I am also curious what a genuinely modern interpretation of this scene might look like, and what elements would still need to remain for us to immediatly recognize the story.
Frescoes by Pinturicchio, Baglioni Chapel of the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore, Spello.
Created in 1501 by Pinturicchio and his workshop towards the apex of his fame (in between his frescoes in the papal apartments for Alexander VI and his work in Siena on the Piccolomini library and much more), these are truly marvellous works of art that merit a close, prolonged look. But that’s precisely what the folks in charge of admissions to this church are keen to avoid which is simply disgraceful. Pinturicchio deserves far better. And so, of course, do you!
*Find out why we can’t share one of our own photos in this essay: https://ideasroadshow.substack.com/p/on-the-ground.
Religious Paintings
Alot of paintings depicted of Abraham, Moses, etc and the Archangels are always Anglo-Saxon, and why is that? Serious question. Why haven't I seen the appropriate Semitic depictions of them? Did they ever exist/lost to time/erased? Because I refuse to call Archangel Michael "Saint" and accept him as white with blue eyes and blonde hair, or wings because I know they didnt have any. Any thoughts? Resources?
The Futurist Manifesto - Filippo Tommaso Marinetti. 1909.
We have been up all night, my friends and I, beneath mosque lamps whose brass cupolas are bright as our souls, because like them they were illuminated by the internal glow of electric hearts. And trampling underfoot our native sloth on opulent Persian carpets, we have been discussing right up to the limits of logic and scrawling the paper with demented writing.
Our hearts were filled with an immense pride at feeling ourselves standing quite alone, like lighthouses or like the sentinels in an outpost, facing the army of enemy stars encamped in their celestial bivouacs. Alone with the engineers in the infernal stokeholes of great ships, alone with the black spirits which rage in the belly of rogue locomotives, alone with the drunkards beating their wings against the walls.
Then we were suddenly distracted by the rumbling of huge double decker trams that went leaping by, streaked with light like the villages celebrating their festivals, which the Po in flood suddenly knocks down and uproots, and, in the rapids and eddies of a deluge, drags down to the sea.
Then the silence increased. As we listened to the last faint prayer of the old canal and the crumbling of the bones of the moribund palaces with their green growth of beard, suddenly the hungry automobiles roared beneath our windows.
"Come, my friends!" I said. "Let us go! At last Mythology and the mystic cult of the ideal have been left behind. We are going to be present at the birth of the centaur and we shall soon see the first angels fly! We must break down the gates of life to test the bolts and the padlocks! Let us go! Here is they very first sunrise on earth! Nothing equals the splendor of its red sword which strikes for the first time in our millennial darkness."
We went up to the three snorting machines to caress their breasts. I lay along mine like a corpse on its bier, but I suddenly revived again beneath the steering wheel — a guillotine knife — which threatened my stomach. A great sweep of madness brought us sharply back to ourselves and drove us through the streets, steep and deep, like dried up torrents. Here and there unhappy lamps in the windows taught us to despise our mathematical eyes. "Smell," I exclaimed, "smell is good enough for wild beasts!"
And we hunted, like young lions, death with its black fur dappled with pale crosses, who ran before us in the vast violet sky, palpable and living.
And yet we had no ideal Mistress stretching her form up to the clouds, nor yet a cruel Queen to whom to offer our corpses twisted into the shape of Byzantine rings! No reason to die unless it is the desire to be rid of the too great weight of our courage!
We drove on, crushing beneath our burning wheels, like shirt-collars under the iron, the watch dogs on the steps of the houses.
Death, tamed, went in front of me at each corner offering me his hand nicely, and sometimes lay on the ground with a noise of creaking jaws giving me velvet glances from the bottom of puddles.
"Let us leave good sense behind like a hideous husk and let us hurl ourselves, like fruit spiced with pride, into the immense mouth and breast of the world! Let us feed the unknown, not from despair, but simply to enrich the unfathomable reservoirs of the Absurd!"
As soon as I had said these words, I turned sharply back on my tracks with the mad intoxication of puppies biting their tails, and suddenly there were two cyclists disapproving of me and tottering in front of me like two persuasive but contradictory reasons. Their stupid swaying got in my way. What a bore! Pouah! I stopped short, and in disgust hurled myself — vlan! — head over heels in a ditch.
Oh, maternal ditch, half full of muddy water! A factory gutter! I savored a mouthful of strengthening muck which recalled the black teat of my Sudanese nurse!
As I raised my body, mud-spattered and smelly, I felt the red hot poker of joy deliciously pierce my heart. A crowd of fishermen and gouty naturalists crowded terrified around this marvel. With patient and tentative care they raised high enormous grappling irons to fish up my car, like a vast shark that had run aground. It rose slowly leaving in the ditch, like scales, its heavy coachwork of good sense and its upholstery of comfort.
We thought it was dead, my good shark, but I woke it with a single caress of its powerful back, and it was revived running as fast as it could on its fins.
Then with my face covered in good factory mud, covered with metal scratches, useless sweat and celestial grime, amidst the complaint of staid fishermen and angry naturalists, we dictated our first will and testament to all the living men on earth.
MANIFESTO OF FUTURISM
- We want to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and rashness.
- The essential elements of our poetry will be courage, audacity and revolt.
- Literature has up to now magnified pensive immobility, ecstasy and slumber. We want to exalt movements of aggression, feverish sleeplessness, the double march, the perilous leap, the slap and the blow with the fist.
- We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its bonnet adorned with great tubes like serpents with explosive breath ... a roaring motor car which seems to run on machine-gun fire, is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.
- We want to sing the man at the wheel, the ideal axis of which crosses the earth, itself hurled along its orbit.
- The poet must spend himself with warmth, glamour and prodigality to increase the enthusiastic fervor of the primordial elements.
- Beauty exists only in struggle. There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character. Poetry must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown, to force them to bow before man.
- We are on the extreme promontory of the centuries! What is the use of looking behind at the moment when we must open the mysterious shutters of the impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We are already living in the absolute, since we have already created eternal, omnipresent speed.
- We want to glorify war — the only cure for the world — militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman.
- We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice.
- We will sing of the great crowds agitated by work, pleasure and revolt; the multi-colored and polyphonic surf of revolutions in modern capitals: the nocturnal vibration of the arsenals and the workshops beneath their violent electric moons: the gluttonous railway stations devouring smoking serpents; factories suspended from the clouds by the thread of their smoke; bridges with the leap of gymnasts flung across the diabolic cutlery of sunny rivers: adventurous steamers sniffing the horizon; great-breasted locomotives, puffing on the rails like enormous steel horses with long tubes for bridle, and the gliding flight of aeroplanes whose propeller sounds like the flapping of a flag and the applause of enthusiastic crowds.
It is in Italy that we are issuing this manifesto of ruinous and incendiary violence, by which we today are founding Futurism, because we want to deliver Italy from its gangrene of professors, archaeologists, tourist guides and antiquaries.
Italy has been too long the great second-hand market. We want to get rid of the innumerable museums which cover it with innumerable cemeteries.
Museums, cemeteries! Truly identical in their sinister juxtaposition of bodies that do not know each other. Public dormitories where you sleep side by side for ever with beings you hate or do not know. Reciprocal ferocity of the painters and sculptors who murder each other in the same museum with blows of line and color. To make a visit once a year, as one goes to see the graves of our dead once a year, that we could allow! We can even imagine placing flowers once a year at the feet of the Gioconda! But to take our sadness, our fragile courage and our anxiety to the museum every day, that we cannot admit! Do you want to poison yourselves? Do you want to rot?
What can you find in an old picture except the painful contortions of the artist trying to break uncrossable barriers which obstruct the full expression of his dream?
To admire an old picture is to pour our sensibility into a funeral urn instead of casting it forward with violent spurts of creation and action. Do you want to waste the best part of your strength in a useless admiration of the past, from which you will emerge exhausted, diminished, trampled on?
Indeed daily visits to museums, libraries and academies (those cemeteries of wasted effort, calvaries of crucified dreams, registers of false starts!) is for artists what prolonged supervision by the parents is for intelligent young men, drunk with their own talent and ambition.
For the dying, for invalids and for prisoners it may be all right. It is, perhaps, some sort of balm for their wounds, the admirable past, at a moment when the future is denied them. But we will have none of it, we, the young, strong and living Futurists!
Let the good incendiaries with charred fingers come! Here they are! Heap up the fire to the shelves of the libraries! Divert the canals to flood the cellars of the museums! Let the glorious canvases swim ashore! Take the picks and hammers! Undermine the foundation of venerable towns!
The oldest among us are not yet thirty years old: we have therefore at least ten years to accomplish our task. When we are forty let younger and stronger men than we throw us in the waste paper basket like useless manuscripts! They will come against us from afar, leaping on the light cadence of their first poems, clutching the air with their predatory fingers and sniffing at the gates of the academies the good scent of our decaying spirits, already promised to the catacombs of the libraries.
But we shall not be there. They will find us at last one winter's night in the depths of the country in a sad hangar echoing with the notes of the monotonous rain, crouched near our trembling aeroplanes, warming our hands at the wretched fire which our books of today will make when they flame gaily beneath the glittering flight of their pictures.
They will crowd around us, panting with anguish and disappointment, and exasperated by our proud indefatigable courage, will hurl themselves forward to kill us, with all the more hatred as their hearts will be drunk with love and admiration for us. And strong healthy Injustice will shine radiantly from their eyes. For art can only be violence, cruelty, injustice.
The oldest among us are not yet thirty, and yet we have already wasted treasures, treasures of strength, love, courage and keen will, hastily, deliriously, without thinking, with all our might, till we are out of breath.
Look at us! We are not out of breath, our hearts are not in the least tired. For they are nourished by fire, hatred and speed! Does this surprise you? it is because you do not even remember being alive! Standing on the world's summit, we launch once more our challenge to the stars!
Your objections? All right! I know them! Of course! We know just what our beautiful false intelligence affirms: "We are only the sum and the prolongation of our ancestors," it says. Perhaps! All right! What does it matter? But we will not listen! Take care not to repeat those infamous words! Instead, lift up your head!
Standing on the world's summit we launch once again our insolent challenge to the stars!
It's incredible how paintings with very close origin stories can hold very different reputations centuries later. 20 to 30 thousand people visit the Mona Lisa each day, and it awaits its own gallery under construction. Madonna of the Yarnwinder at the Met was not too crowded.
Caravaggio’s *Saint Sebastian*. One lie begets another, and the next spreads like metastases throughout the entire body.
The empty frames at the Gardner museum are the original frames, repaired and hung back up after the thieves cut the paintings out of them
In the early hours of 18 March 1990, two men dressed as police officers rang the buzzer at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston and said they were responding to a disturbance. The guard on duty broke protocol and let them in through the employee entrance. They handcuffed him and a second guard, tied them up in the basement, and eighty one minutes after they entered they walked out with thirteen works.
What gets far less attention is what they left on the floor. Five of the thirteen were paintings that had been taken or cut out of their frames, and those frames stayed in the building. The museum's own conservation department has written about them, and they carry more history than the theft does.
The Vermeer frame is French, from the second half of the seventeenth century. At some point the top and bottom rails were cut down the middle so that sections could be taken out and the frame narrowed to fit the painting. That was ordinary practice. For centuries frames were altered, reused and swapped as owners and tastes changed, which is how a Dutch painting ends up in a French frame that has been sawn to size.
There is a second Vermeer frame in that building, black, with ripple moulding, a technique that mechanically carves the look of small waves into the wood. Gardner never got rid of it. She reused it years later to hold a textile fragment in another room, and the gilt label plate naming the painter is still attached to the bottom edge. So there is a frame in that museum today, holding a piece of cloth, still wearing the name of a painting that is not in the building.
One of the Rembrandt frames was modified again much later, during the Second World War, so that the painting could be taken off the wall quickly in case of invasion. It was rebuilt to come out fast in an emergency, and the emergency that eventually emptied it was two men with handcuffs and a borrowed uniform.
The Manet frame is the odd one. The four Dutch Room frames were left on the gallery floor where the paintings had hung. The Manet frame was found on the other side of the building, in a security office. The painting is small enough that it did not need to come out of the frame at all, and nobody has explained why they carried the empty frame across the museum before putting it down there.
The museum repaired all five and put them back on the walls as place holders. One correction I would like to make while I am here, because I believed it myself until I checked. It is very widely repeated that the frames stay empty because Gardner's will forbids changing anything in the galleries. I cannot find the museum saying that. Their own account of the frames is a simpler and more deliberate thing than a legal obligation. If someone has read the will itself and it does say so, I would rather be corrected than keep repeating the tidy version, because the story everyone tells and the story the museum publishes are not the same story.
The gold-encrusted hilt of the Marengo Sword carried by Napoléon Bonaparte, manufactured in Paris c. 1798-1800. [1200x800]
In 1994 Bill Gates paid $30.8 million for this 72-page Leonardo da Vinci notebook written entirely in right-to-left mirror script
How to look deeper at self potraits
This is the Self-Portrait with a Straw Hat (1887), at the Met in New York.
I have no formal art training. I love self potrait's in general and Van Gogh's ones in particular. Things I noticed after looking at this last time:
- The brushstrokes in the face seem to follow the shape of the face, but in the background they radiate outward around his head, almost like a halo.
- The beard is orange, red, even green. All separate strokes sitting next to each other and from a distance it reads as a beard.
- The blue jacket against the yellow hat. It feels like a deliberate choice. But I don't have a proper vocabulary for that.
So my questions for people who actually know how to look:
- When you look at this painting, what do you notice first? What order do your eyes move in?
- What am I not seeing that a trained eye would catch immediately?
- And secondarily — if a layman wanted to train this skill, where would you start? A book, a course, a channel?
I'm not looking for the Wikipedia biography stuff (ear, Theo, illness). I want to get better at seeing/Looking deeper. Thank you.
Thieves Steal Four Renaissance Paintings From Italian Museum in Brazen Heist
Four paintings by the Renaissance master Antonello da Messina were stolen from a museum in Messina, Sicily, on Saturday, Italian officials said.
Taking advantage of an annual religious celebration that brings tens of thousands to Messina’s streets, thieves made off with three of five panels that constitute the Polyptych of San Gregorio as well as a small double-sided devotional painting. They are the only works by Antonello da Messina, commonly called Antonello, that remained in his native city.