Beth's Everything Blog

Archive for the ‘Picture of the Day’ Category

HENRI CARTIER-BRESSON-PHOTOGRAPHER EXTRAORDINAIRE

In an effort to explain the art world we have tried to single out for the reader interesting artists throughout history. We have a small photograph done by Henri Cartier-Bresson which shows a fat French family picnicking at a race track. It is not one of his greatest works, but it forces us to look and to understand this family in a way that no other artist could have done. Henri Cartier-Bresson was one of the greatest photographers of the 20th century. He came from an affluent French family; Cartier-Bresson was headstrong and determined not to follow in his father’s footsteps, thus he determined that he was meant to be an artist. It was also natural then for him as a young man to be a communist as well as a surrealist and to busy himself in brothels. Gertrude Stein viewed his paintings and advised him to join the family business. In 1931 he began taking pictures in Africa where he acquired black waterfever and a Leica camera. He then gave himself over to his surrealist spirit recording odd events in the city streets of Marseilles. Cartier-Bresson says that he suddenly realized that “photography could reach eternity through the moment”. What really makes him a genius is that he approached photography recording timeless truth and immediacy which thrilled both the eye and the mind.

In 1937 he joined the staff of a communist daily newspaper and he was sent to cover the coronation of King George VI. His photographs did not record the pomp of the event; instead he turned his lens to the attending crowds.

He had joined the French army in 1939 and, captured by the Germans, he spent three years in prison camps before he escaped. During this time he proceeded to take magnificent portraits of the leading avant garde intellectuals of France in a new way. These silent duels with consenting adult persons generated the most beautiful and moving portraits in photographic history. After the war he made a film about the expatriation of liberated prisoners and displaced persons in Europe. One still from this film shows a female collaborator being denounced by a woman she had betrayed. It was a photograph that aroused ferocious anger in all who saw it, and it was this single photograph that brought him to New York where he became a co-founder of Magnum, a photographic agency headed by Robert Capa, a famous American photographer.

Cartier-Bresson began to photograph in a unique new way. He blackened the shiny portions of his camera and carried it around under his coat so that he simply photographed his subjects surreptitiously. It was his eye that determined what the viewer would see when the photographs were printed. However his lens was focused on the crowds rather than on the pomp. He was still a communist when LIFE magazine published his shots or workers, students, and soldiers involved in Mao’s Great Leap Forward in 1959. Cartier-Bresson from that time on travelled the world that brought him to China, to India, Russia, Mongolia, Indonesia, the middle east and Japan.

Then in 1975 he put down his Leica after a 45 year career behind the camera and never thought of himself as the founding father of photojournalism nor did he take any more photographs. “It doesn’t interest me.” he said.

And the question for us is just what makes him great? What allowed him to photograph with such perfection? What he photographed was of less importance than where he placed himself to photograph it. His shutter click climaxed an artful scurry for the perfect point of view. Cartier-Bresson took photographs that aligned him with the head, the eye, and the heart of his subjects. He understood people, children, old ladies and what moments are significant in human beings. He was able to do this because he was intelligent, educated, and possessed of an understanding of history. Moreover he had an innate sense of what was going on in the world and he was there when great earth shaking things happened. It is still thrilling today to “meet up with his work.”

Only eight days into the new year, and already we are knee deep in the politics of choosing the next president. It’s a dirty business, full of partial truths, innuendos, and out and out lies. My stomach turns over when I read the vitriolic comments on the internet. It seems few can have reasonable discussions without name calling, even the so-called intellectuals. Very tiresome. Worse still, it’s only the beginning. Somehow we must slog through the muck until November.

At least we can be grateful that the Iowa caucuses are over. In a state of some 3,000,000 people, 91 % of whom are Caucasian, less than 150,000 or maybe 4 % of the population voted, 25% for Mitt and 25% for Rick, who is, politically speaking,  far right of the far right.

And speaking of Iowa, did you read that some farmers are selling their Iowa farmland for as high as $13,000 an acre? Iowa farmers are the state’s new millionaires because corn and soybean prices have gone through the roof. A farmland  bubble or will it last?

Just to start you thinking, here are a few things that have happened under President Obama administration: *Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources, *Vaccination programs have been expanded, *We now have a State Children’s Health Insurance Program that covers health care for 4 million more children,  and *Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research.

On my new Wildlife calendar this year is a picture of a polar bear with her young cub who’s chances of survival are less than 40% and decreasing because the arctic ice is melting faster each year. Polar bears do not hibernate like brown bears so they are forced to swim longer and longer distances to find food.

One last thought. As I write this, the outdoor temperature is 60 degrees. Louie and I jumped at the chance to take advantage of the strange but great walking weather. The park was full of little people. Louie loves those children and you could almost see him smile as he sat patiently letting their tiny, little fingers poke and pet him.

There is a new book I simply have to own. It is written by Robert Hughes, an art critic who uses words so magnificently and so wittily that he is famous for his long career of passionate opinions. The new book is entitled ROME-A Cultural, Visual, and Personal History. Hughes is not the stuff of classical art history scholars, but he is capable of prodigious energies and enthusiasms and he is a past master of the well turned phrase. He is not only eloquent; he is also courageous and forthright in his opinions. And so this essay must of necessity take direct quotes of Hughes’ personal history writing in order to give full meaning to the excitement I feel as I turn the pages.

Robert Studley Forrest Hughes was born, raised and educated in Australia. Law was the family business through three generations but it did not excite him. He has been described as knowledgeable, sensible, passionate, lucid, unpretentious and most importantly, witty. He concentrated on the visual arts and architecture. His books on Barcelona and Goya as well as on Australia have delighted his audience . He has been the art critic for TIME as well as a documentary film maker and he has lived in the USA for most of his adult life.

What astounds many of his critics is that he finds new observations to make about Rome, a city that has been observed, discussed, praised, and vilified for over 2000 years. The reader sits and nods in recognition of the validity of his complaints about Rome’s traffic or the thousands of tourists pouring into and out of the Vatican and the Sistine Chapel. He cites Caravaggio’s portrayal of beautiful young Italian boys and describes them with “hair like black ice cream”. Another entry about the Cathars, a heretical sect in southern France whose members were massacred in the Albigensian Crusade, is commented upon thus, “One might have thought that such mild people presented about as much threat to society as a gaggle of vegans–whose spiritual ancestors, in a sense, they were.” There is a description of a mural depicting gory martyrdom as “a kind of Sistine Chapel for sentimental sadists.” Hughes even has a snide understatement about the cruelty of Nero toward the citizens of Rome and even his own family, “Even without the accusations of arson, Nero’s treatment of others, including his own family, was to, put it mildly, defective.”

This is a complicated narrative of the mythological founding of Rome which Hughes takes the reader through and it explains the rise and fall of Rome as well as well as shepherding the reader throgh the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Baroque. Particularly fascinating is the passage on Bernini’s Baroque Apollo and Daphne. Apollo, the god of light and unmarried men, is desirous of a carnal relationship with Daphne, a chaste nymph. In the tempestuous battle between chastity and sexual desire Daphne begs to be saved. “Nobody had tried to illustrate in sculpture things in transition, to convey what was incomplete or in the very process of change. Yet we do see the change from girl to tree happening before our eyes; the bark enveloping and encasing her lithe body; softness giving way to ligneous toughness; movement turning into rootedness. Moreover, the sculpture seems to defy what we know is the chief property of stone: its brittleness.” In another critical estimate Hughes depicts the death of Germanicus with the man’s face turned away so that his expression is not revealed; he says this is “Poussin’s way to suggest that this death is not a private issue but one of history itself”.

When Hughes takes Rome into the modern era he makes comparisons between Mussolini and Hitler that are difficult to absorb “what you saw with Mussolini was what you got. The Italians admired his courage, which was not in doubt. He was clearly not in politics for personal gain; he cared nothing for money or domestic comfort….He had no middle-class background; he was wholeheartedly patriotic and genuinely male.” Then to bring the book up to the present day he complains about Italians wasting their time on soccer and overloading on bad television.

Why, you may ask, am I so enamored of the book and Hughes? To which I must respond that he and I have two important things in common–the glory and the grandeur of Rome through the ages. and a love and abiding respect for Italy. If you have been to Rome, if you want to go to Rome, even if you are not going to Rome it is a fascinating wonderful joy to read.

We Americans ‘sort of ‘ got what we wanted. The senate passed (89 to 10) an extension of a cut to the Social Security payroll tax, albeit only a two-month extension, and jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed, though only a for a few months.

But . . . Republicans attached a rider speeding up the  process for the construction of Keystone Pipeline XL.

President Obama says it will be okay though because the approval process  for the legislation carries a tight deadline which will ease his ability to stop the project more quickly. (?) What we need to do now is write/call The President and beg that he stop the “dirty, dangerous, oil pipeline proposal [which] would bring corrosive oil from Canada through America’s Heartland. It would be devastating to our air, our water and our climate,” says The National Sierra Club.

In the meantime, grab your warm coat and your binoculars and join 60,000 other Americans in the Audubon Christmas Bird Count. It’s fun and you might just be able to save the birds, our habitat and humanity. Go to Count Date Search to find out a place closest to you.

According to the National Audubon Society, the count takes place within “Count Circles,” which focus on specific geographical areas. Each circle is led by a Count Compiler. Therefore, if you are a beginning birder, you will be able to join a group that includes at least one experienced birdwatcher. In addition, if your home is within the boundaries of a Count Circle, then you can stay home and report the birds that visit your feeder once you have arranged to do so with the Count Compiler. There is a $5 fee to participate in the CBC for all field participants aged 19 or older. Please see our frequently asked questions to learn more. If you have never been on a CBC before your first step is to locate and contact your local Count Compiler to find out how you can volunteer.

Chickadees in decline

Get ready for another miraculous discovery in the field of art. The Metropolitan Museum of New York is in the process of identifying a work which they acquired in 1970 as a work by Michelangelo. That does not mean that the identity of the painter has been firmly established. And in this case it provides a clear timeline for determining the authorship of all “found art”. Here is a painting that has resided in the museum for over 40 years attributed to Francesco Granacci, who just happened to be a good friend of Michelangelo. Now comes Everett Fahy, one of the world’s most distinguished scholars of the Italian Renaissance, and declares that SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST BEARING WITNESS is not a Granacci but is absolutely the work of Michelangelo. Fahy says, “I’m acutely aware that Michelangelo attracts a lot of crazy ideas, and people are going to say this is another absurd idea…….I’m expecting that they’re going to throw brickbats.”

Fahy has just recently retired as chairman of the Met’s department of European paintings. His successor is Keith Christiansen who has gone on record saying, “I think Everett has put forward the strongest argument that can be made for it.” Now Mr. Christiansen, does this mean you agree yes or disagree no? To which he smiles and says “I don’t do yes or no.” Fahy has shown the work to authorities in the field beginning with the late Edmund P. Pillsbury who was completely convinced that the work was by Michelangelo. Fahy says that it is to be expected that others will disagree, but “the people who really have good eyes in this field that he has shown the painting all agreed with me.” He has written a 65 page article about the painting which he has titled “An Overlooked Michelangelo?” He used the question mark because it wold be more diplomatic and not offend people who might still be dubious about the bona fide painter of the work. Christiansen, in turn, states that the attribution will not be changing because he thinks a public institution should reflect a consensus view of the outstanding scholars of the period. But he estimates the it will take a whole generation to definitely approve of the authorship of Michelangelo. He continued,”It’s terrific that Everett has the courage to put himself out, but he’s going to be raked over the coals.”

The Met bought the painting at Sotheby’s London together with a companion work attributed to Granacci; both works concern the life of the Baptist. It is interesting that the Met paid $50,000 more for the Granacci which is still a Granacci than they did for the possible Michelangelo. (The possible Michelangelo will herein after be identified as simply the second panel.) Fahy feels that the the second panel is so superior to the companion panel and he believes that Michelangelo painted it in 1506, only two years before he began work on the Sistine ceiling. Michelangelo was five years younger than Granacci who played a formative role in the younger man’s early life. They were extremely close and Granacci looked after his friend’s personal affairs when Michelangelo was out of town.

Fahy feels that the second panel is so superior to the companion panel. The Granacci painting depicts seven scenes from the story of St. John the Baptist set in a classical pavillion with a grayed blue river in the background. It is an oil, tempera, and gold on walnut panel and is dated circa 1510. The second panel contains a single episode in a stony setting and is executed only in oil and gold on wood. It would seem that the pairing of the two panels as companion pieces might be doubtful. Both panels were attributed to Ghirlandaio. The first recorded owner was Samuel Woodburn who was described as the most eminent dealer in works of art in England. At some point the works entered the collection of the earl of Ashburnham. The attribution of scenes from the life of John the Baptist was recognized as a work by Granacci and this is universally accepted today. It is evident to the naked eye that the two panels were by different artists because the handling of the paint, the design of the figures, and the rendering of the landscapes are completely different. Three different artists have been the proposed painter of this second panel. One of the three proposals suggest that the panel was painted by an assistant to Granacci using Michelangelo’s drawings. Fahy finds striking analogies between Michelangelo’s full frontal nude drawings and the painting. He finds nude male figures in the middle ground of the Doni Tondo who have the same poses as some of the figures on the second panel. We know that Michelangelo was in Florence most of the year in 1506 after completing the tomb of Julius II in Rome. His most important patron was Giovanni (or John) and he was intimately involved with Michelangelo, who had been stuck up to that time in Carrara or Bologna doing the portrait of Julius or working on the tomb. The style of the panel coincides with the work of Michelangelo in this period.

A sculpture now on view in the Met is one attributed to Michelangelo. It had been housed in he lobby of a town House on 5th Avenue as a decorative object. My tenuous connection with Michelangelo attributions is that I wen to undergraduate school with Professor Irving Lavin who made the first discovery of the sculpture in 1996. Lavin is convinced that it is a Michelangelo sculpture and so is Fahy . Both Fahy and James Draper, curator of European Sculpture at the Met, are convinced it is a work by Michelangelo. However other scholars disagree. Now 15 years later there is still no change in attribution. Fahy is a brilliant art historian in my book. As a young man he was often called the Baby BB (Bernard Berenson the legendary historian of the Italian Renaissance). LastLavin year he opted for early retirement because the Met has been facing the problem of having to fire young staff to cut operating expenses. In so doing he probably protected the jobs of at least 3 or 4 younger historians. My tenuous connection with Michelangelo attributions is that I went to undergraduate school with Professor Irving Lavin who is now retired from NYU Institute of Fine Art but made the first discovery of the sculpture in 1996. This sculpture is still under investigation for a Michelangelo attribution. It will be interesting to see what transpires as the Renaissance scholars begin their further investigations. Until that time Fahy has the inside track on the second panel. The truth of the matter is that by the time the final decision is made most of the participants in the judgment may well have expired, but if the second panel does meet with the approval of the scholars it will be a feather in the cap or the Met and Everett Fahy. The world of masterpiece accreditation is a maze and the decision to verify a work is tedious and confounding. It just takes a lot of time to be able to remove the question mark. The concept that Rome was not built in a day applies to any changes to attributions for any and all works of art of the High Renaissance. But when and if this second panel is accepted it will increase the value and quality of the Met holdings geometrically. So on with the testing and critiquing of the Granacci that may be a Michelangelo.