| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Art majors, help me out!!! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 9 2007, 07:57 AM (1,041 Views) | |
| Dewey | Apr 9 2007, 07:57 AM Post #1 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I need to find an example of two paintings, painted by different artists, that have common subject matter - but where the emphasis has shifted. For example: Painter A creates a painting of something - preferably an event/action/occurrence - with the artist's primary emphasis in the foreground, and other aspects of the event/action/occurrence visible in the background, but not being as stressed as the artist's primary intention. Painter B creates a painting of the exact same event/action/occurrence, but from another vantage point - that of what was "background," or secondary in the first painting, but which has now become the primary focus, and the first artist's primary emphasis has now receded to secondary importance. Does anyone know of two related paintings that fit this description? The two paintings need not necessarily be confined to a common time or location of creation, only the relationship of subject matter that I've described. I'm sure that there are, and that with some digging, I could find them, but I'm lazy, and I respect the TNCR brain trust, so I thought I'd ask first. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Pseudonymous Reporter | Apr 9 2007, 08:07 AM Post #2 |
|
Advanced Member
|
I'm breaking my general rule of not-responding to threads, however I know Monet often painted the same subject but from different perspectives or situations. For example, here are his haystacks paintings as seen in different seasons: Original: ![]() Sunset, snow: ![]() Autumn, end of day: ![]() Overcast, snow: ![]() Hope this helps. Sorry that they aren't by different artists. |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Apr 9 2007, 08:10 AM Post #3 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
First - nothing off the top of my head. It is probably not exactly what you are looking for but something like Pickett's charge at Gettysburg painted both by a southern sympathizer and a northern sympathizer would be interesting. Probably much more like what you are looking for would be a painting by someone of Custer's last stand from both the Sioux perspective and the romanticized western art perspective. Or maybe a natural disaster with a volcano going off in the background and the townspeople's reaction in the foreground and a second with the volcano as the focus showing the sleepy town below. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 9 2007, 08:15 AM Post #4 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Oh no, PR, they wouldn't even have to be different artists - but they do have to be "foreground/background reversed" - kind of like in the last Monet painting, if Monet had painted a painting with that farmhouse now coming to the foreground, and seeing that same haystack now as background. And Kincaid, the example of Pickett's charge would actually work, provided they showed the exact same thing, just from two different/opposite vantage points. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| bachophile | Apr 9 2007, 08:17 AM Post #5 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
![]() and... ![]() Leonardo Painting the Mona Lisa Aimee Brune Pages 1845 |
| "I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Apr 9 2007, 08:17 AM Post #6 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
yo...pm me about exactly what you're trying to illustrate...I have a ton of stuff that may help, some is sculpture rather than painting. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 9 2007, 08:29 AM Post #7 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
This frequently happens in Netherlandish paintings from about 1450 to 1650, esp religious paintings such as the Nativity or the Passion. Sometimes stories will be told with very small figures in the background that are proper subjects of larger paintings by the same or different artists. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| katie | Apr 9 2007, 09:30 AM Post #8 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I wonder if this is what you're speaking od Dewey: I found these by googling "Delft" and to give credit where it's due, here's the website I sourced providing additional information. It's created by the Dutch art historian K e es K ald en b ach who's produced a free quicktime video concerning the subject of Delft: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kalden/ The famous painting, 'View of Delf' by Johannes Vermeers: ![]() By verKessel: ![]() By verHaast : ![]() By verLiend :
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Claude Ball | Apr 9 2007, 09:36 AM Post #9 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Me and my cousin Theo painted the barn once. Before we did it that barn just blended into the background. But after we painted it, it just popped out like a new penny, and jumped clean out. I'd send you the before and after pictures to use, but we ain't got the prints back from Walgreens yet. |
|
Dain bramage caused my peach imspediment. Tooth? Tooth? You can't handle the tooth! Remember: He who laughs last, thinks slowest..... DON'T BEND OVER IN THE GARDEN, MARGARET - THEM TATER'S GOT EYES! | |
![]() |
|
| katie | Apr 9 2007, 09:38 AM Post #10 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Ooops, now I know what you're speaking of Dewey .. It's more than different vantage points .. I'll have to think of that ...
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 9 2007, 09:49 AM Post #11 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So far, I think you've been the closest, katie - but ideally, it would be something that showed some distinct thing or event in the foreground, and another distinct thing in the background; where in the second example, the exact same things would be depicted, only with foreground and background emphases (and therefore, the artist's primary intended point) reversed - or more accurately, telling the exact same "story" from another point of view. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| katie | Apr 9 2007, 09:52 AM Post #12 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Dewey, My advice would be to choose a real common landscape, city view (like above), or thingie (Eiffel Tower), that you know has been painted by many artists (or in images of their paintings) & google that subject matter under "art" & "history" & "images" to see what you come up with. This is how I found this. There too may be more in that website that would nail the answer to your question. Check it out ....
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Apr 9 2007, 10:26 AM Post #13 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Sometimes it's good, when illustrating a concept, to avoid using artwork that speaks to another part of Scripture (or mixes Scripture with other references) but if that is not an issue, I find this pairing to be really interesting. Chagall's White Crucifixion: Munch's Golgotha:
|
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Apr 9 2007, 10:41 AM Post #14 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
How about this: The March on Washington ![]() King at Washington ![]() Not great "art" I know, though I really like the first one. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Apr 9 2007, 10:42 AM Post #15 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I like the idea of photography, Kincaid...especially if there was a pairing that, just by virtue of a change in depth of field, completely manipulated the message of the photograph. |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Apr 9 2007, 10:47 AM Post #16 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Here's another one.![]() I like this one better because it also has the monument in the background. I agree Deb - a different message would be great. That was where I was going with the Custer and Gettysburg ideas - but couldn't find both perspectives. Wish I could find one with a white Washington DC cop contemplate a sandwhich he was eating while King was in the background giving his speech. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| katie | Apr 9 2007, 11:01 AM Post #17 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Yup .. I think you did well Kincaid. Great subject matter too. I consider photography art. I wonder why Dewey wants this & why he wants paintings?? I bet Notre Dam de Paris would be an interesting search, as would civil war battlegrounds (mentioned above). |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Apr 9 2007, 11:03 AM Post #18 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I asked, Katie, he's not married to paintings...just wants art, I think. (not meaning to speak for him, of course...just figure he's busy enough writing really LONG posts in another thread )
|
![]() |
|
| bachophile | Apr 9 2007, 11:04 AM Post #19 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
doesnt my entry fit that description exactly?????
|
| "I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen | |
![]() |
|
| katie | Apr 9 2007, 11:06 AM Post #20 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
The March on Washington is good. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| katie | Apr 9 2007, 11:07 AM Post #21 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Yours was butt kicking awesome Bach .... yet I wonder what mona was looking at and thinking while she sat for that portrait ...
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Apr 9 2007, 11:08 AM Post #22 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
If paintings are needed, just need to run those photos thru the photoshop to make them look artsy. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Apr 9 2007, 11:10 AM Post #23 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
yeah...but maybe it would have been more what Dewey was looking for if one of the two artists had focused on painting her enigmatic smile and the other had been moved to paint her prize winning ass? |
![]() |
|
| bachophile | Apr 9 2007, 11:11 AM Post #24 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
but she is sitting on it.... |
| "I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Apr 9 2007, 11:12 AM Post #25 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
eternally? |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |











-mona-lisa.jpg)







)
12:47 AM Jul 13