6 Like 0 Dislike
Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (1780-1867) was a French Neoclassical painter. Ingres was profoundly influenced by past artistic traditions and aspired to become the guardian of academic orthodoxy against the ascendant Romantic style. Although he considered himself a painter of history in the tradition of Nicolas Poussin and Jacques-Louis David, it is his portraits, both painted and drawn, that are recognized as his greatest legacy. His expressive distortions of form and space made him an important precursor of modern art, influencing Picasso, Matisse and other modernists. Born into a modest family in Montauban, he travelled to Paris to study in the studio of David. In 1802 he made his Salon debut, and won the Prix de Rome for his painting The Ambassadors of Agamemnon in the tent of Achilles. By the time he departed in 1806 for his residency in Rome, his style—revealing his close study of Italian and Flemish Renaissance masters—was fully developed, and would change little for the rest of his life. While working in Rome and subsequently Florence from 1806 to 1824, he regularly sent paintings to the Paris Salon, where they were faulted by critics who found his style bizarre and archaic. He received few commissions during this period for the history paintings he aspired to paint, but was able to support himself and his wife as a portrait painter and draughtsman. Ingres's style was formed early in life and changed comparatively little. His earliest drawings, such as the Portrait of a Man (or Portrait of an unknown, 3 July 1797, now in the Louvre) already show a suavity of outline and an extraordinary control of the parallel hatchings which model the forms. From the first, his paintings are characterized by a firmness of outline reflecting his often-quoted conviction that "drawing is the probity of art". He believed colour to be no more than an accessory to drawing, explaining: "Drawing is not just reproducing contours, it is not just the line; drawing is also the expression, the inner form, the composition, the modelling. See what is left after that. Drawing is seven eighths of what makes up painting." The art historian Jean Clay said Ingres "proceeded always from certitude to certitude, with the result that even his freest sketches reveal the same kind of execution as that found in the final works." Abhorring the visible brushstroke, Ingres made no recourse to the shifting effects of colour and light on which the Romantic school depended; he preferred local colours only faintly modelled in light by half tones. "Ce que l'on sait," he would repeat, "il faut le savoir l'épée à la main." ("Whatever you know, you must know it with sword in hand.") Ingres thus left himself without the means of producing the necessary unity of effect when dealing with crowded compositions, such as the Apotheosis of Homer and the Martyrdom of Saint Symphorian. Among Ingres's historical and mythological paintings, the most satisfactory are usually those depicting one or two figures, such as Oedipus, The Half-Length Bather, Odalisque, and The Spring, subjects only animated by the consciousness of perfect physical well-being. Ingres was averse to theories, and his allegiance to classicism—with its emphasis on the ideal, the generalized, and the regular—was tempered by his love of the particular. He believed that "the secret of beauty has to be found through truth. The ancients did not create, they did not make; they recognized." In many of Ingres's works there is a collision between the idealized and the particular that creates what Robert Rosenblum termed an "oil-and-water sensation". This contradiction is vivid in Cherubini and the Muse of Lyric Poetry (1842), for example, in which the detailed rendering of the 81-year-old composer is juxtaposed with an idealized muse in classical drapery. Although capable of painting quickly, he often laboured for years over a painting. Ingres's pupil Amaury-Duval wrote of him: "With this facility of execution, one has trouble explaining why Ingres' oeuvre is not still larger, but he scraped out frequently, never being satisfied ... and perhaps this facility itself made him rework whatever dissatisfied him, certain that he had the power to repair the fault, and quickly, too." The Source, although dated 1856, was painted about 1820, except for the head and the extremities; Amaury-Duval, who knew the work in its incomplete state, professed that the after-painting, necessary to fuse new and old, lacked the vigour and precision of touch that distinguished the original execution of the torso. Thank you, please subscribe for future videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0gMk3w9hw8BbtqoUpEMKeg?sub_confirmation=1
Jan Hermansz van Bijlert (1597 or 1598 – November 1671) was a Dutch painter whose style was influenced initially by Caravaggio. Jan van Bijlert was born in Utrecht, the son of the stained glass worker Herman Beernts van Bijlert. He may have had some training by his father. Subsequently he became a student of Abraham Bloemaert. Like other painters from Utrecht, he travelled in France and Italy. In 1621 he was, along with Cornelis van Poelenburch and Willem Molijn, a founding member of the circle of Dutch and Flemish artists in Rome known as the Bentvueghels. It was the custom among the Bentvueghels to adopt a nickname. Van Bijlert's nickname was "Aeneas". In 1625 he was back in Utrecht, where he married and joined the schutterij. In 1630 he became a member of the Utrecht Guild of St. Luke and the Reformed church. During the years 1632-1637 he was active as deacon of the guild, and in 1634 he was appointed regent of the Sint-Jobsgasthuis. In 1639 he helped form a painter's school, the "Schilders-College", where he served as regent. He died in Utrecht. Jan van Bijlert was a very prolific painter who left some 200 pictures. Upon his return from Rome he, like other Utrecht artists who had come under the influence of Caravaggio's work, painted in a style derived from that of Caravaggio. These Utrecht artists are referred to as the Utrecht Caravaggisti. The Caravaggesque style of van Bijlert’s early paintings shows itself in the use of strong chiaroscuro, the cutting off of the picture plane to create a close-up image and the realism of the representation. Van Bijlert continued to paint in this style throughout the 1620s. Around 1630 van Bijlert turned to a more classicising style, possibly under the influence of Cornelis van Poelenburch. His colours became lighter and his subject matter became more elevated such as religious scenes. In the 1630s he also painted compositions with small figures, usually representing genre scenes of brothels or musical gatherings. These works were similar to those of the Utrecht painter Jacob Duck. Van Bijlert also painted the portraits of eminent citizens of Utrecht such as burgomasters and nobles. His pupils included Bartram de Fouchier, Ludolf Leendertsz de Jongh, Johannes de Veer, Mattheus Wijtmans and Abraham Thank you, please subscribe for future videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0gMk3w9hw8BbtqoUpEMKeg?sub_confirmation=1
Rachel Ruysch, Fruit and Insects, 1711, oil on wood, 44 x 60 cm (Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence); speakers: Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker. Created by Steven Zucker and Beth Harris.
This is a talk I gave for Tandem Press' 25th Anniversary at the Chazen Museum in Madison, Wisconsin. For additional information please visit http://kleinartistworks.com/. If you have a question, please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you.
Web vidéo reportage au sein de l'Atelier de Francis Glénat Artiste Peintre Réalisation de films sur le travail d'artistes et artisans : Web18 / Sandra Boulou : http://www.Web18.net et http://www.Webvideo.fr
Willem Van Aelst (1626-1683) - A collection of paintings & drawings 2KHD silent slideshow
A Dutch Golden Age artist who specialized in still-life painting with flowers or game.
Van Aelst was born in Delft to a family of prominent city magistrates. He learned to paint from his uncle, the still-life painter Evert van Aelst. On 9 November 1643, he enrolled as a master of the Guild of Saint Luke at Delft.
Between 1645 and 1649 he lived in France. In 1649 Van Aelst travelled to Florence, where he served as court painter to Ferdinando II de' Medici, grand duke of Tuscany. Here he was known as Guillielmo d'Olanda. At this time, the grand duke also employed two fellow Dutchmen Matthias Withoos and Otto Marseus van Schrieck, the latter also a still-life painter who probably influenced Van Aelst's style. Ferdinando II publicly presented Van Aelst with a gold chain and medal, as a testimony of his approbation and an acknowledgement of his talents.
It has been conjectured that Van Aelst visited Rome where he became a member of the Bentvueghels, an association of mainly Dutch and Flemish artists active in Rome. This conjecture is based, not very convincingly, on his practice during the years 1657/58 to sign his works with his name followed by: ‘alias (and a drawn stick figure)'. Some interpreted this as a reference to a Bent name (the nickname that a member of the Bentvueghels would adopt) – De Vogelverschrikker (Dutch for 'Scarecrow')- but there are no documents confirming this.
In 1656 he returned to the Netherlands to settle permanently in Amsterdam. He became one of the most prominent still-life painters of his generation, which allowed him to live on the Prinsengracht. He must have at Amsterdam died in 1683 or shortly thereafter, as his latest dated work is from that year. Van Aelst taught Rachel Ruysch, Isaac Denies, Maria van Oosterwijck, and Ernst Stuven
Thank you, please subscribe for future videos