I started teaching Art History and don't have a lot to work with. These videos have been immensely helpful for helping me learn material to present to my students. Thank you!
Hi, love your videos! you say at 49:30 that there has been debate about whether the 'Bonfire of the Vanities' had happened - is there anyone in particular who has written on the subject as I have been looking for this interpretation but am unable to find it...
Four things: (1) These artists had impossible genius (far beyond typical famous artists, of any period) (2) They had more money and health and knowledge and pigments than the 1300s (3) They had more time than before (4) They had a masterful command over oil (which is why it's so realistic) He says some of these men created paintings almost too perfect and too quickly around 1420 though 1700, but he maybe didn't note that some of them spent 2,000 or even 10,000 hours on their paintings. Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling, for example, though not the most perfect example of painting, required about 26,000 hours (much of it painted by him alone, without help), and he was painting upwards on his back! Very impressive. Some of these artists were clearly not only gifted but wizards, beyond typical talent and hard work. On top of this, before the 1400s, most artists were not interested in complete realism. However, if we look at some of the cave paintings from many years ago, you see they had serious talent, given that they drew horses to near-perfection (one assumes, purely from memory). We could say that artists have lost their ability over the generations. This surely is not evidence that the old masters used magical methods that were hidden from the world, not even written about by da Vinci himself? Wiki, regarding Jan van Eyck's remarkable ability, says that this is largely down to 'his keen powers of observation and his tendency to apply layers of thin translucent glazes to create intensity of color and tone.' Also, for some unknown reason, the Dutch and Flemish are the best painters in the world, at least from about 1400 to 1890. As a general rule, anyway.
Birth of Venus was not for Lorenzo Magnifico, but for his nephew Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco who was a distant cousin, Don't call Leonardo "da Vinci", that's calling you, "from Utah", ugh!
I'm slowly going through all your videos and it is soooooo interesting, thank you so much for sharing them!
You are so welcome!
I started teaching Art History and don't have a lot to work with. These videos have been immensely helpful for helping me learn material to present to my students. Thank you!
Fantastic presentation, thank you so very much!
I love you thank you so muuuuuch
Regarding Botticelli’s Primavera, If I remember correctly; the figures are, from center to right: Venus, Flora, Chloris, and Zephyr.
Hi, love your videos! you say at 49:30 that there has been debate about whether the 'Bonfire of the Vanities' had happened - is there anyone in particular who has written on the subject as I have been looking for this interpretation but am unable to find it...
Four things:
(1) These artists had impossible genius (far beyond typical famous artists, of any period)
(2) They had more money and health and knowledge and pigments than the 1300s
(3) They had more time than before
(4) They had a masterful command over oil (which is why it's so realistic)
He says some of these men created paintings almost too perfect and too quickly around 1420 though 1700, but he maybe didn't note that some of them spent 2,000 or even 10,000 hours on their paintings. Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling, for example, though not the most perfect example of painting, required about 26,000 hours (much of it painted by him alone, without help), and he was painting upwards on his back! Very impressive. Some of these artists were clearly not only gifted but wizards, beyond typical talent and hard work.
On top of this, before the 1400s, most artists were not interested in complete realism. However, if we look at some of the cave paintings from many years ago, you see they had serious talent, given that they drew horses to near-perfection (one assumes, purely from memory). We could say that artists have lost their ability over the generations. This surely is not evidence that the old masters used magical methods that were hidden from the world, not even written about by da Vinci himself?
Wiki, regarding Jan van Eyck's remarkable ability, says that this is largely down to 'his keen powers of observation and his tendency to apply layers of thin translucent glazes to create intensity of color and tone.'
Also, for some unknown reason, the Dutch and Flemish are the best painters in the world, at least from about 1400 to 1890. As a general rule, anyway.
“sOMeBoDY would’ve BLABED!!” 😹😹
very nice
In the Arnolfini portrait can you see the dog in the mirror?.
Thank you for your perspective on things and for details my professor didn't provbide.
Photorealists just used a grid,.... but the image they used to put the grid on was a photograph.
Hay I'm all so from Italy (Veneto)
Benvenuto!
Professor how old are you?
No photo-bombing in 15th century Dutch paintings! LOL
I think that painting of the early 1400s in the north was superior to Italian painting of the time.
Birth of Venus was not for Lorenzo Magnifico, but for his nephew Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco who was a distant cousin, Don't call Leonardo "da Vinci", that's calling you, "from Utah", ugh!