This week in the Fine Arts Workshop, our group had to find convergences (i.e. patterns) in art. We had to select one photograph and one piece of art that follow similar visual patterns. Different tastes often lead to different ideas, however; the three of us found different patterns that appealed to us. Interestingly enough, without consulting each other, we all chose pieces of art with a religious context. Their views can be seen on their respective blogs. Carly found a portrait of a younger mother and her two year old son and compared it to Fra Fillipo Lippi's rendition of the Virgin Mother and Christ child. (www.justapipe.blogspot.com). Julia compared a portrait of an old beggar woman with Donatello's withered statue of Mary Magdalene. (www.signonthewall.blogspot.com).
Being a fiend for Vanity Fair portraits, I chose an Annie Lebovitz frontgate portrait from a couple of years ago of Hollywood's rising stars and compared it to Leonardo Di Vinci's Last Supper. Linearly, the subjects of the two pieces follow the same horizontal plane and the arrangements of the subjects of the photograph mirror those of Jesus' disciples.
Annie Lebovitz's "Splendor on the Grass" - Vanity Fair April 2000
Leonardo Di Vinci's The Last Supper 1495-1498
_-_The_Last_Supper_(1495-1498).jpg)
I like the opportunities for comparison and contrast these two images provide us. Leibowitz is known for large scale, very produced (lots of light and make-up) photographs of celebrities in which the subjects seem to take on a level of historical importance beyond celebrity status. Di Vinci's "Last Supper" is "linear" in its composition as you point out, and it does feature "celebrities" of a sort. I like the way that this pairing gets you thinking about the reasons we elevate people to celebrity status, as well as the mythological dimension that celebrity thrives upon. You could also think of the way that each image is an artifact of a culture. Lots to think about. Good work.
ReplyDeleteOh, I didn't finish my comparison on point 1. Leibowitz makes very produced, large-scale photos, and Di Vinci used models when rendering Jesus and Judas. No duh, right? I guess my point is that in a time before photography portraiture was not mechanical, but manual. Photography is a quintessentially modern art because it is mechanical. Painting is ancient, relying on pigments made from natural materials, brushes made from horse hair. I guess I'm seeing a convergence between medium and message.
ReplyDeleteI like the dramatic contrast between the periods and the time that each were constructed in. The similarities that you discussed in class are also very interesting and make them a good convergence. I especially appreciate the fact that the people in the photograph are on the ground and at the "actual" Last Supper Jesus and the Disciples would have been on the ground.
ReplyDeleteI really like this pairing! It's very interesting that all these people were icons either now in the media or in the Bible. It is really a great pairing, and the similarities Professor Griffith mentioned above and in class are also striking! :D
ReplyDelete-Mandy-
This was a really interesting choice, but I like it. I love the comparison of an extraordinarily famous religious image with the photo of celebrities who today are basically worshiped as well. Good choice.
ReplyDelete-Mary