Comments on: Caravaggio

By: Tennis

Tennis — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:49:39 +0000

‘The Supper at Emmaus’ by Caravaggio, had a lasting effect upon me when I visited the National Gallery last summer during my sabbatical. It was one of those defining moments. While listening to a piece of music my emotions are quickly engaged, but up to this time, art hadn’t effected me in the same way. It was while looking at this painting for a prolonged period that something changed. It was something to do with the centrality of the beardless Christ, the effect of darkness and light, the reaction of the disciples, the contrasting passivity of the servant, the sense that the fruit bowl is about to drop off the side of the table, the chair is being pushed back, the hole is about to develop in the elbow of the sleeve, the hand is coming out of the painting at you, and the way that I was invited into this action on the vacant side of the table. But it was more than all this. I think what did it was hearing a guide explain to a party, with what I conjecture was more than just an enthusiasm for the painting, that this is a freeze-frame, a split second before Jesus disappeared from their sight. I was profoundly touched.

Mike
Tennis Instructor

By: murphy

murphy — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:33:03 +0000

Another important element of his composition not mentioned here is the positioning of one of the platters slightly over the edge of the table which dramatically adds tension to the scene.

By: Kim WW

Kim WW — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:13:15 +0000

Warning: Art novice speaking-
I barely noticed the foreshortened arm until you mentioned it. I guess that proves he did it right

By: Charley Parker

Charley Parker — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:24:48 +0000

Yes, I noticed the hand proportion as well, and use of a camera obscura may explain that, though Michelangelo’s David, for example, has oversize hands and a extra large head (even for a young man), and I don’t think there’s an issue of optical projections there.

I haven’t had a chance to read Hockney’s book, so I’m not in a good position to comment on it.

If he is merely suggesting that these artists employed optical devices, I think they probably did; artists have used every technique at their disposal to create better pictures, grids, cartoons, measuring and sighting techinques of all kinds, and, of course, linear perspective. I have no problem with that, any more than I have any probelm with the use of photographic reference.

If he is, on the other hand, suggesting that the use of optical devices was necessary for these painters to achieve their level of skill, and was somehow responsible for their accomplishments, I will laugh in his face, because that’s simply absurd.

It’s almost certain that Vermeer used a camera obscura. If Hockeny can use a camera obscura (or 21st Century photographic and projection techiques if he wants), and paint me a Vermeer, I’ll eat it.

By: Terry Krysak

Terry Krysak — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:20:32 +0000

I found your views on Caravaggio very interesting. A few years ago I came across a professor who was pretty much convinced that Caravaggio as well as many other artists used the “Camera Obscura” to create their paintings, and that the realism aspect of their paintings was dramtically improved by this invention.
Below is a link to an article by Susan Grundy on the work of Caravaggo containing this information;

http://webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/post/grundy.html

I use digital camera images for my work, and have projected slides onto watercolor paper and lightly trace what I want, to form the basis of the painting. I spend hours refining the drawing to my satisfaction before starting the painting. Don’t get me wrong, I can draw quite well without this process, I just find that it is a very useful tool that makes the whole creation process easier and faster.

I would be interested in comments on this Camera Obscura theory.

By: Charley Parker

Charley Parker — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:18 +0000

I agree. More camera on the painting, please; less melodramatic grimacing by actors, thank you very much.

By: Daniel van Benthuysen

Daniel van Benthuysen — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:22:10 +0000

What is genuinely off-putting is Schama’s use of actors dressed up in period clothing going through the motions. Fortunately the use of this device is, for the most part, restrained and least offensive when the actors are in effect nothing more than background mimes to Schama’s voice-over story-telling. The episode in which an actor speaks a number of passages that van Gogh wrote but probably never really spoke aloud is the least effective.

The most potent of these episodes so far has been the hour examining Picasso and, not coincidently, this is the episode that relies least on actors in the background. The sketches that developed into Guernica and the dual inspirations of Valezquez and Goya are succinctly examined and the camera lingers over Guernica’s details after we’ve learned the history of the village’s brutal destruction. It’s just the way you want to examine great art: with insights and anecdotes from a connoisseur. But let’s leave the costumed mimes outside on the museum steps.

By: Enzie Shahmiri

Enzie Shahmiri — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:52:33 +0000

Caravaggio’s extreme foreshortening is awesome in this piece. I came across a great book on him published by Phaidon “Caravaggio”by Catherine Puglisi.

By: Charley Parker

Charley Parker — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:10:57 +0000

Jonas,

Thanks for your comments. I’m not suggestiong that they were the only ones with a good command of foreshortening, simply that I think they were the best at it.

By: Jonas Geiregat

Jonas Geiregat — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:14:09 +0000

I do not agree that the concept of foreshortening which Caravaggio used was only matched by Buonerotti. I believe Da Vinci and Rubens also had the power the draw and paint limbs in a foreshortened way.