Carlo Crivelli, Madonna and Child, c. 1480, tempera and gold on wood, 37.8 x 25.4 cm (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) A conversation between Dr. Lauren Kilroy-Ewbank and Dr. Steven Zucker.
Hey as a gardener, ripe cucumbers are a sign of late summer turning into fall, the yellowing at one end of the cucumbers does too. Also the stones in her halo are done incredibly well. Really enjoyed seeing this painting. thanks.
Thank you for this lovely visit to The Met. It is a delightful introduction to this picture. All good wishes for 2020, and an always gratitude to Lila Acheson Wallace and so many others.
I just got this in my youtube recommended, and I wasn't aware there is a whole community around renaissance art and it's interpretations. Though I am not really into it, I still think that's really cool! :)
Lovely video but you missed the most important point. If you trace the direction of the Virgin's eyes you can see she is looking at the fly. The Christ Child also seems to be flinching away from it and clutching the goldfinch to protect it from this enormous fly. This is a really sophisticated visual representation of how Christ and the Virgin can interact between our world and theirs and is a metaphor for intercession. Crivelli often does this but no one seems to notice it.
Good job as always. Only a few things: pronunciation for Marche has the letter c "hard"; I remember the goldfinch being symbolic for the death of Christ; the opening fingers of Madonna right hand are an old symbolic blessing gesture (also superstitious) and if you pay attention you will find it in countless gothic and renaissance artworks. Have a great art year
I'd say it's an interesting juxtaposition that one of the ways humans express or symbolize divintity or divine power is to equivocate it to the peak of earthly wealth, which you would think would be beneath an all powerful being, because honestly what use does a jewelled halo bring to the son to the so-called creator of the universe? Or even the concept of tithing in general?
I get what you mean but I think it actually might be the other way around. Like of this time period and centuries before it the wealthiest of the wealthy were of course monarchy. The monarchy was thought to be of divine birth in a sense, why else should this person be leader just because they were born of a certain family and not anyone else's? because God picked it of course. The monarchy wanted to give a sense of divinity to peasants, merchants, other nobles, etc and that's why they developed incredibly elaborate aesthetics that we associate with these eras and regions. They wanted any peasant who looked upon them and their lives, comparatively dripping in wealth and luxury, and Believe that they are somehow closer to God than themselves. So from that of course depictions of actual spirituality would be connected to nobility and those were basically 100% of the people who had access to art. It's interesting when you compare it to the aesthetics of wealth in modern times or places that didn't have those same beliefs about the wealthy and powerful.
MichaelaLoser Im not so sure about a belief that the wealthy were closer to God. (Perhaps in their own minds haha). There has always been a common theme through Christianity that poverty was healthier for the soul than wealth. Christ was born into humble circumstances, he preached against worldly wealth, he lived the life of an itinerant rabbi, and at the end he died a death which was reserved for the lowest of the low in society. Since the beginning of the monastic movement in the first centuries of Christianity, monks nuns and some many priests have been swearing oaths of simplicity and poverty. So I agree it is odd that in iconography, Christ and the saints are often depicted with gold and jewels etc. There is a theological principle which explains this phenomenon: though Christ embraced a life of poverty and humility, and Christians are called to do the same, it is not OUR place to humble Christ (or his mother). It is this principle which is behind the practice of building ornate churches and cathedrals especially during the Gothic building boom of the Medieval era, (where the egos of the individual artists and architects was less at play than in the Renaissance). Also, it is a mistake to think that it was only the nobility who had access to art. Historically the Catholic Church is the largest patron of art in world history, obviously much of it was commissioned for use in Churches which the public had access to. In fact, in a world where literacy among the lay people was rare, much of Christian art was used as a way to transmit basic teachings and stories in a visual way.
@@displaychicken Okay but what I'm talking about has nothing to do with actual teachings of Christianity? Im talking about nobility and people in power WHICH INCLUDES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. We may not call them nobles but uh they were. They were wealthy and closely tied to the monarchy for a very long time. It's literally just a fact that the family of the monarchy was thought to be divinely chosen at that time. Those beliefs were supported by the people in power including the Catholic church. The aesthetics that were created by the wealthy were made to support that belief and that continued all the way through history to the Palace of Versailles which was built and decorated with that exact purpose in mind: to make any peasent who saw it feel like these people were divinely chosen to live a life so completely outside the reach of the lower class simply by right of birth. (Tho it didnt really work in the end.) And yes your right people had access to these paintings as in to see them but they could not commission this art for themselves MEANING THEY CANNOT INFLUENCE THE AESTHETIC OF THAT TIME PERIOD. Which is what I'm talking about. The aesthetic of Christian art was determined by wealthy and powerful people who got to decide what was in the art pieces that people would be "taught" from. If you are the Cathoic church and you're benefiting from the monarchy and youre commisioning art that will be seen by the people suffering for the sake of the monarchy its simply two birds with one stone- visually connect the spiritual figures to "the divine bloodline". Im sorry but its completely silly to think that wealthy people chose to have depictions of Mary be dressed JUST LIKE the noble families for the sake of "not humbling her". Thats a great excuse but I will not believe that wealthy people had such altruistic intentions. That would be to ignore the obvious influence art has on people and the obvious motives wealthy people had to influence the mass's perception of both the people who ruled their physical and spiritual lives and connect them as closely as possible. Regardless of if the monarchy truely believed that or not and I'm sure some of them really really did.
While it's true that Renaissance paintings are highly symbolic, I'm not sure the cucumber has a symbolic meaning here. It's open to interpretation, in my opinion. It might be just that Crivelli enjoyed painting cucumbers, because of their rough skin which enabled him to show his skill in depicting textures. Maybe he liked painting cucumbers so much, that he decided to make it a signature item and include it in a lot of his paintings, as a decorative element.
@@catherinepoteat It actually has to do with the many seeds inside as I understand it. Just for the record, this is a well accepted interpretation that reflects standard literature.
@@janetownley I keep saying the same thing while studying Crivelli's work. And by "studying his work" I mean I've spent the afternoon looking into it and it's more than obvious to me. I don't know why this symbolism isn't addressed much, if at all. That type of symbolism is used in all different religions through out all of time. I'm glad you mentioned it, Patty 😄
Awesome and beautiful. Could you please let me know from where I can get this painting in India. Or could you please share and upload these pictures without inscriptions. Many thanks for considering this request of mine. All the very best. Best regards, Nassa
Could you make videos to explain how painters used make their masterpieces? All the different layers and under painting? What did they paint first? Then next, etc... Thanks
I was wondering what the connection is with Mary seemingly aware of the trompe l’oeil fly through the direction of her gaze AND that the infant child's head is turned toward the fly, but HIS gaze is on the bird. Mary and the child are already set apart as spiritual beings, but does THIS depict the difference in spirituality between Mary and the child? She is aware of and focusing her gaze on the sin, as if she is aware of the material world (In the sense of the whole complex array of human earthly relationships) and she's focusing her gaze on it. The infant is seemingly aware of it, depicted through his head being turned toward it, but His focus and grasp is on that which is most important; His promise to mankind. Gazing at sin doesn't make it irrelevant, only Christ can do that.
I disagree with the opinion of Madonna’s hands starting @5:59. I think they are the most jarring part of the work. They are the most notably incorrect in terms of anatomical accuracy. I also feel like the hands have been sacrificed as a tool to emphasize the geometry of the piece. I usually love geometric notes in paintings but this particular technique drew me out of the work. Sorry to nitpick. The thought stood out to me and I wanted to share it. Thanks for an educational and thought provoking video.
to me Mary's middle phalange's look a bit too long & Jesus's left arm feel's very flat , although the arm thing im not sure if it's done intentionally cause Jesus's right arm in comparison looks a lot more 3-dimensional , other than this can you point what what anatomical inaccuracy you found?
As we mention, the contrast between the faces and hands, and the other forms in the painting is indeed sharp, and as you wrote, even jarring. This was clearly intentional and may have symbolic intention related to representing the holy. It is important to remember that despite the general trend in the 15th century toward greater naturalism, the use of abstracted or stylized form remained an important tool for the artist, one that could reference earlier painting styles, divinity, or other ideas. Crivelli clearly sought this quality, one that has sometimes been called wooden or artificial. Having looked at many of his paintings it does seem to be a deliberate means to represent the the otherworldly-flesh and form that is beyond our world.
I actually love the hands. They look graceful and stylized, reminding of Byzantine iconography. I would also add, there's no iron-clad rule in art stipulating that if a painting is mostly realistic in representation, then all its elements must be equally realistic. Artists have the freedom to mix different elements according to their style and inspiration, in order to obtain the desired effect. Anything is allowed in art, as long as it's meaningful.
Thanks to everyone for the responses, especially Smarthistory’s! I really appreciate the comments around the intentional treatment of the hands, which I found over elongated, and that they were not meant to be as naturalistic as the rest of the piece. Upon further consideration my initial comment comes from a belief that the attention the hands draws distracts from a piece filled with so many other symbols and points of meaning. I appreciate that their less than natural representation might have a symbolic meaning but there’s so many other symbols and subtle notes that the hands seem jarring. Thank you all for the discussion and Merry Christmas!
My uni art history course use smarthistory as supplemental material and this is how I know you! Are there any books about symbolism in Renaissance I could learn as a beginner? It is always so interesting to me, thank you!
Thanks for writing. The problem I have found with dictionaries of symbols is that they try to say, this means this, period. Symbols have many variant meanings depending on place and time and circumstance not to mention how the symbol is depicted and so a symbol found in a given work of art needs to be understood as part of a visual vocabulary but also one that is in constant flux.
I think Crivelli really enjoyed representing textured surfaces in his paintings. The cucumber's skin is wrinkled and rough, and the pillow has these beads that look a bit 3d, like protruding shimmering sequins. And the puffiness of that pillow makes it look so squishable! I think it's a mark of great artistic skill when the painter manages to transform visual stimuli into tactile sensations for the viewer. As for being historically accurate, this is art, it doesn't have to be historically accurate. At this time in history art was highly symbolic and allegorical, even if the interest in naturalism was on the rise. But interest in the naturalistic representation of the world does not necessarily mean strict historical accuracy, unless we're talking about scientific research. Renaissance painters felt free to combine in their art elements from the life of Christ, or Greek mythology, with elements from their own period, and thus create these imaginary, allegorical scenes where past, present, history and eternity were all weaved together in a harmonious way, in order to convey....an emotion, or an idea, or a moralizing tale. In conclusion, historical accuracy belongs to historians. Artists on the other hand, they are not bound by it, they may choose to either comply with it or not, as long as it serves their artistic purpose.
I am becoming conversational in Renaissance, thanks to you two!!❤️
Hey as a gardener, ripe cucumbers are a sign of late summer turning into fall, the yellowing at one end of the cucumbers does too. Also the stones in her halo are done incredibly well. Really enjoyed seeing this painting. thanks.
The elongated hands also anticipate a much later style -- Mannerism.
Thank you for this lovely visit to The Met. It is a delightful introduction to this picture. All good wishes for 2020, and an always gratitude to Lila Acheson Wallace and so many others.
Simple. To the point. Educational. Though provoking. This is how to look at art! Thanks for such a cool video.
I love these types of videos.
the qualitative difference with the earlier Van Eyck is startling
Im so happy I found this channel. Thank you!!!
Thank you, this is marvelous. I am a doctor, but the art world touches me more and more. And you help me a lot
I have learned a lot from this video! Thank you for explaining all of the details in this gorgeous painting!
~ Janet in Canada
I just got this in my youtube recommended, and I wasn't aware there is a whole community around renaissance art and it's interpretations. Though I am not really into it, I still think that's really cool! :)
Thoroughly enjoyable, but I wish you had explained the shadow mouth on baby J.
Now I understand what ‘trompe l’oeil’ means!
Great, thanks again to bring us such good content!
Lovely video but you missed the most important point. If you trace the direction of the Virgin's eyes you can see she is looking at the fly. The Christ Child also seems to be flinching away from it and clutching the goldfinch to protect it from this enormous fly. This is a really sophisticated visual representation of how Christ and the Virgin can interact between our world and theirs and is a metaphor for intercession. Crivelli often does this but no one seems to notice it.
Welcome back sensei(Steven Zucker)!!
ha!
Totally enjoyable... I loved the alternating man's and woman's voices... Totally convincing
Crivelli easily becoming one of my favorite renaissance artists!
😍 Look at that adorable bb with his unreasonably tiny feet, lol!
I love the vibrant colors, smooth textures, and rich symbolism. This is a favorite.
I think the fly is a memento mori and symbolizes death, decay and impermanence rather than sin as stated In the video.
Good job as always. Only a few things: pronunciation for Marche has the letter c "hard"; I remember the goldfinch being symbolic for the death of Christ; the opening fingers of Madonna right hand are an old symbolic blessing gesture (also superstitious) and if you pay attention you will find it in countless gothic and renaissance artworks. Have a great art year
"The Marches" is the way it is pronounced in English. Just like "Piedmont" is pronounced "Peedmont". Just like we say "Londra" instead of "London".
Love your channel!
Beautiful!
I'd say it's an interesting juxtaposition that one of the ways humans express or symbolize divintity or divine power is to equivocate it to the peak of earthly wealth, which you would think would be beneath an all powerful being, because honestly what use does a jewelled halo bring to the son to the so-called creator of the universe? Or even the concept of tithing in general?
I get what you mean but I think it actually might be the other way around. Like of this time period and centuries before it the wealthiest of the wealthy were of course monarchy. The monarchy was thought to be of divine birth in a sense, why else should this person be leader just because they were born of a certain family and not anyone else's? because God picked it of course. The monarchy wanted to give a sense of divinity to peasants, merchants, other nobles, etc and that's why they developed incredibly elaborate aesthetics that we associate with these eras and regions. They wanted any peasant who looked upon them and their lives, comparatively dripping in wealth and luxury, and Believe that they are somehow closer to God than themselves.
So from that of course depictions of actual spirituality would be connected to nobility and those were basically 100% of the people who had access to art.
It's interesting when you compare it to the aesthetics of wealth in modern times or places that didn't have those same beliefs about the wealthy and powerful.
MichaelaLoser Im not so sure about a belief that the wealthy were closer to God. (Perhaps in their own minds haha). There has always been a common theme through Christianity that poverty was healthier for the soul than wealth.
Christ was born into humble circumstances, he preached against worldly wealth, he lived the life of an itinerant rabbi, and at the end he died a death which was reserved for the lowest of the low in society.
Since the beginning of the monastic movement in the first centuries of Christianity, monks nuns and some many priests have been swearing oaths of simplicity and poverty.
So I agree it is odd that in iconography, Christ and the saints are often depicted with gold and jewels etc.
There is a theological principle which explains this phenomenon: though Christ embraced a life of poverty and humility, and Christians are called to do the same, it is not OUR place to humble Christ (or his mother). It is this principle which is behind the practice of building ornate churches and cathedrals especially during the Gothic building boom of the Medieval era, (where the egos of the individual artists and architects was less at play than in the Renaissance).
Also, it is a mistake to think that it was only the nobility who had access to art. Historically the Catholic Church is the largest patron of art in world history, obviously much of it was commissioned for use in Churches which the public had access to. In fact, in a world where literacy among the lay people was rare, much of Christian art was used as a way to transmit basic teachings and stories in a visual way.
@@displaychicken Okay but what I'm talking about has nothing to do with actual teachings of Christianity? Im talking about nobility and people in power WHICH INCLUDES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. We may not call them nobles but uh they were. They were wealthy and closely tied to the monarchy for a very long time. It's literally just a fact that the family of the monarchy was thought to be divinely chosen at that time. Those beliefs were supported by the people in power including the Catholic church. The aesthetics that were created by the wealthy were made to support that belief and that continued all the way through history to the Palace of Versailles which was built and decorated with that exact purpose in mind: to make any peasent who saw it feel like these people were divinely chosen to live a life so completely outside the reach of the lower class simply by right of birth. (Tho it didnt really work in the end.)
And yes your right people had access to these paintings as in to see them but they could not commission this art for themselves MEANING THEY CANNOT INFLUENCE THE AESTHETIC OF THAT TIME PERIOD. Which is what I'm talking about. The aesthetic of Christian art was determined by wealthy and powerful people who got to decide what was in the art pieces that people would be "taught" from. If you are the Cathoic church and you're benefiting from the monarchy and youre commisioning art that will be seen by the people suffering for the sake of the monarchy its simply two birds with one stone- visually connect the spiritual figures to "the divine bloodline".
Im sorry but its completely silly to think that wealthy people chose to have depictions of Mary be dressed JUST LIKE the noble families for the sake of "not humbling her". Thats a great excuse but I will not believe that wealthy people had such altruistic intentions. That would be to ignore the obvious influence art has on people and the obvious motives wealthy people had to influence the mass's perception of both the people who ruled their physical and spiritual lives and connect them as closely as possible. Regardless of if the monarchy truely believed that or not and I'm sure some of them really really did.
Wh.. why is a cucumber a symbol of resurrection?? I find it hard to find a two year olds favorite snack sacred 😯
While it's true that Renaissance paintings are highly symbolic, I'm not sure the cucumber has a symbolic meaning here. It's open to interpretation, in my opinion. It might be just that Crivelli enjoyed painting cucumbers, because of their rough skin which enabled him to show his skill in depicting textures. Maybe he liked painting cucumbers so much, that he decided to make it a signature item and include it in a lot of his paintings, as a decorative element.
because when you make a pickle, that is a cucumber's rebirth
Nobody’s going to mention the obvious?
@@catherinepoteat It actually has to do with the many seeds inside as I understand it. Just for the record, this is a well accepted interpretation that reflects standard literature.
@@janetownley I keep saying the same thing while studying Crivelli's work. And by "studying his work" I mean I've spent the afternoon looking into it and it's more than obvious to me. I don't know why this symbolism isn't addressed much, if at all. That type of symbolism is used in all different religions through out all of time. I'm glad you mentioned it, Patty 😄
My darling Crivelli.
Awesome and beautiful. Could you please let me know from where I can get this painting in India. Or could you please share and upload these pictures without inscriptions. Many thanks for considering this request of mine. All the very best. Best regards, Nassa
i love this channel
Could you make videos to explain how painters used make their masterpieces? All the different layers and under painting? What did they paint first? Then next, etc... Thanks
So this channel is just going to pretend it didn't just create itself today and appeared randomly on my recommendations...?
I was wondering what the connection is with Mary seemingly aware of the trompe l’oeil fly through the direction of her gaze AND that the infant child's head is turned toward the fly, but HIS gaze is on the bird. Mary and the child are already set apart as spiritual beings, but does THIS depict the difference in spirituality between Mary and the child? She is aware of and focusing her gaze on the sin, as if she is aware of the material world (In the sense of the whole complex array of human earthly relationships) and she's focusing her gaze on it. The infant is seemingly aware of it, depicted through his head being turned toward it, but His focus and grasp is on that which is most important; His promise to mankind. Gazing at sin doesn't make it irrelevant, only Christ can do that.
To me the halos look like they are lying flat. Like the artist put down a plate and arranged some polished glass. And just painted that.
I disagree with the opinion of Madonna’s hands starting @5:59. I think they are the most jarring part of the work.
They are the most notably incorrect in terms of anatomical accuracy. I also feel like the hands have been sacrificed as a tool to emphasize the geometry of the piece. I usually love geometric notes in paintings but this particular technique drew me out of the work.
Sorry to nitpick. The thought stood out to me and I wanted to share it. Thanks for an educational and thought provoking video.
to me Mary's middle phalange's look a bit too long & Jesus's left arm feel's very flat , although the arm thing im not sure if it's done intentionally cause Jesus's right arm in comparison looks a lot more 3-dimensional , other than this can you point what what anatomical inaccuracy you found?
As we mention, the contrast between the faces and hands, and the other forms in the painting is indeed sharp, and as you wrote, even jarring. This was clearly intentional and may have symbolic intention related to representing the holy. It is important to remember that despite the general trend in the 15th century toward greater naturalism, the use of abstracted or stylized form remained an important tool for the artist, one that could reference earlier painting styles, divinity, or other ideas. Crivelli clearly sought this quality, one that has sometimes been called wooden or artificial. Having looked at many of his paintings it does seem to be a deliberate means to represent the the otherworldly-flesh and form that is beyond our world.
You can always tell a Crivelli by the hands, they always have this over exaggerated gesture or position sometimes looking almost skeletal.
I actually love the hands. They look graceful and stylized, reminding of Byzantine iconography.
I would also add, there's no iron-clad rule in art stipulating that if a painting is mostly realistic in representation, then all its elements must be equally realistic. Artists have the freedom to mix different elements according to their style and inspiration, in order to obtain the desired effect. Anything is allowed in art, as long as it's meaningful.
Thanks to everyone for the responses, especially Smarthistory’s! I really appreciate the comments around the intentional treatment of the hands, which I found over elongated, and that they were not meant to be as naturalistic as the rest of the piece.
Upon further consideration my initial comment comes from a belief that the attention the hands draws distracts from a piece filled with so many other symbols and points of meaning. I appreciate that their less than natural representation might have a symbolic meaning but there’s so many other symbols and subtle notes that the hands seem jarring.
Thank you all for the discussion and Merry Christmas!
Brilliant!
Great job
My uni art history course use smarthistory as supplemental material and this is how I know you! Are there any books about symbolism in Renaissance I could learn as a beginner? It is always so interesting to me, thank you!
Thanks for writing. The problem I have found with dictionaries of symbols is that they try to say, this means this, period. Symbols have many variant meanings depending on place and time and circumstance not to mention how the symbol is depicted and so a symbol found in a given work of art needs to be understood as part of a visual vocabulary but also one that is in constant flux.
the use of hatching technique is rather puzzling .. more associated with egg tempera works ?
Very cool.
The Levitical Jewish priests who serve in the temple in the time of Christ did wear ceremonial turbans, so the turban is not utterly inappropriate.
Pink? you think the background is pink, not light purple?
Prima!
Historically accurate?
Mary is framed by a dill pickle, Jesus sits on a sesame bagel.
Oh vey!
you're right, sesame bagel cushions haven't been invented until 1734
I think Crivelli really enjoyed representing textured surfaces in his paintings. The cucumber's skin is wrinkled and rough, and the pillow has these beads that look a bit 3d, like protruding shimmering sequins. And the puffiness of that pillow makes it look so squishable! I think it's a mark of great artistic skill when the painter manages to transform visual stimuli into tactile sensations for the viewer.
As for being historically accurate, this is art, it doesn't have to be historically accurate. At this time in history art was highly symbolic and allegorical, even if the interest in naturalism was on the rise. But interest in the naturalistic representation of the world does not necessarily mean strict historical accuracy, unless we're talking about scientific research.
Renaissance painters felt free to combine in their art elements from the life of Christ, or Greek mythology, with elements from their own period, and thus create these imaginary, allegorical scenes where past, present, history and eternity were all weaved together in a harmonious way, in order to convey....an emotion, or an idea, or a moralizing tale.
In conclusion, historical accuracy belongs to historians. Artists on the other hand, they are not bound by it, they may choose to either comply with it or not, as long as it serves their artistic purpose.
🤟🤲
They said rennaissance is all about western europe turn back to pagan pre-christian era..
Halo is a nimbus.
fotha Dan More for saints and Emperors.
fotha Dan Thanks!
LET ME GUESS IS THE MET .....AGAIN . SERIOUSLY