Dresden was lovely today. The Christmas Market was fabulous, and I enjoyed the exhibits and the churches. Two pieces of art in particular really attracted me; I found them both most unusual for their “genre.”
The first “art experience” I really enjoyed was the first Protestant church we visited. From the outside of the building it looked like another usual old European church, but the inside caught me by complete surprise. I loved it. It was so grand yet so simple. For me, it was close to perfect. I felt like it captured some of the grandeur of God and his numinous qualities that is often expressed by the sheer size of the cathedrals. Unlike most other churches, however, this one didn’t have over-the-top décor and excess ornateness that I find distasteful. I think the simplicity of the interior probably added to my perception of its size, and I felt a bit of Otto’s “creature consciousness” that accompanies these large churches. The lighting was also wonderful, very soft and calming. And as I looked around the stucco-ed walls, the area underneath the balconies on either side of the building reminded me of the catacombs the early church met in. I felt very close to the origins of Christianity.
The other piece of art I liked more than I anticipated was Raphael’s Sistine Madonna. We have seen literally countless paintings of the Madonna and child on this trip, so I wasn’t expecting Raphael’s to be anything particularly special, besides the angels at the bottom. I was again caught by surprise. I loved his depiction of Mary and her baby; it is perhaps my favorite painting of Mary ever. What surprised me most was that they look so… normal. Let’s be honest, most paintings of the Madonna with child look a little strange. Baby Jesus’ body often looks way out of proportion or he looks like a small man. And Mary often has a strange forehead or whatnot. But Raphael, who painted in the middle of all these other paintings, portrayed them so “realistically.” And beyond that, I really like Mary’s expression. Her face showed a hint of fear and apprehension, which I thought was appropriate. She was a young mother who had the responsibility of raising God. And not only that, but she had to flee to Egypt when he was little and live amongst strangers. I would think Mary had a lot to “ponder in her heart.”
I find both of these works to be beautiful examples of sacred art. Not because they were religious, but because they presented truth and didn’t “depict beauty at the expense of holiness.”
eks
Showing posts with label Elise Sjogren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elise Sjogren. Show all posts
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
St. Agnes' Convent
I didn’t think I would enjoy our time at St. Agnes’ Convent. I was not a huge fan of the medieval art we saw in Italy, and thought I had seen enough for a lifetime. When I learned that all of this medieval art was Bohemian, however, I started to feel a bit more optimistic. Upon entering the convent, I was immediately struck with how simple and modern it felt. I liked it. And we hadn’t even gotten to the art…
The gallery inside St. Agnes’ Convent was wonderful. I enjoyed it so much more than I thought I would, and could have spent another half hour walking through the exhibits. My favorite pieces of art were located in the first four rooms. These were the oldest pieces on display, and most were created in the mid 14th century. They felt markedly different from the medieval religious art we viewed in Italy. It all seemed so much simpler to me, more elemental and “raw,” as Dr. Redick put it. I loved the wooden sculptures of Mary and baby Jesus. I really liked that they were just wood, and not so ornate. Also, I loved the expression on Mary’s face, and the position of baby Jesus. In most of them, Mary was smiling and looked happy and amused. Baby Jesus was usually reaching his hand to almost tickle her chin, and it was a very sweet pose. I liked the paintings a lot as well. The colors seemed bolder to me, and there was less gold used. I thought they looked more realistic as well… more like real humans. They were simpler in layout too, and weren’t so cluttered with little objects floating around.
As the exhibit continued, I felt a definite change to a style more like what we saw in Italy. They even noted the style change in the descriptive panels, and called it “international” which makes sense. In these later pieces of art, there was much more gold used in the paintings, and they were overall more ornate and busy. Another big change was the addition of lots of symbolic objects. There was more symbolism going on in these later paintings, with random little objects dotting the paintings to signify different things. I also saw many more sculptures of the pieta, with sorrowful Marys instead of happy ones. The emotion displayed in the later section was much more of the suffering undergone by Christ and his followers (especially his mother Mary) while the emotion in the beginning rooms focused on joy and happiness.
I’m not really sure how to compare this art to the secular art we saw in Italy and Greece. The only secular art I can remember that would apply are the multitudes of white stone statues that adorned the temples and monuments, some of gods and many of people. I don’t remember any “secular” paintings. I guess all I can think of is that the countenance of the Virgin’s in the beginning rooms seemed closer to the countenance of some of the statues I saw in Italy of mothers with their children.
I’m really glad we went to this exhibit. It was great to see authentic Bohemian artwork, and be able to compare it to Italian. I also really liked the style of the museum, and thought the interior was really well designed. It was modern yet very tasteful; it added to and didn’t detract from the art on display. Good choice, Dr. Redick ☺.
eks
The gallery inside St. Agnes’ Convent was wonderful. I enjoyed it so much more than I thought I would, and could have spent another half hour walking through the exhibits. My favorite pieces of art were located in the first four rooms. These were the oldest pieces on display, and most were created in the mid 14th century. They felt markedly different from the medieval religious art we viewed in Italy. It all seemed so much simpler to me, more elemental and “raw,” as Dr. Redick put it. I loved the wooden sculptures of Mary and baby Jesus. I really liked that they were just wood, and not so ornate. Also, I loved the expression on Mary’s face, and the position of baby Jesus. In most of them, Mary was smiling and looked happy and amused. Baby Jesus was usually reaching his hand to almost tickle her chin, and it was a very sweet pose. I liked the paintings a lot as well. The colors seemed bolder to me, and there was less gold used. I thought they looked more realistic as well… more like real humans. They were simpler in layout too, and weren’t so cluttered with little objects floating around.
As the exhibit continued, I felt a definite change to a style more like what we saw in Italy. They even noted the style change in the descriptive panels, and called it “international” which makes sense. In these later pieces of art, there was much more gold used in the paintings, and they were overall more ornate and busy. Another big change was the addition of lots of symbolic objects. There was more symbolism going on in these later paintings, with random little objects dotting the paintings to signify different things. I also saw many more sculptures of the pieta, with sorrowful Marys instead of happy ones. The emotion displayed in the later section was much more of the suffering undergone by Christ and his followers (especially his mother Mary) while the emotion in the beginning rooms focused on joy and happiness.
I’m not really sure how to compare this art to the secular art we saw in Italy and Greece. The only secular art I can remember that would apply are the multitudes of white stone statues that adorned the temples and monuments, some of gods and many of people. I don’t remember any “secular” paintings. I guess all I can think of is that the countenance of the Virgin’s in the beginning rooms seemed closer to the countenance of some of the statues I saw in Italy of mothers with their children.
I’m really glad we went to this exhibit. It was great to see authentic Bohemian artwork, and be able to compare it to Italian. I also really liked the style of the museum, and thought the interior was really well designed. It was modern yet very tasteful; it added to and didn’t detract from the art on display. Good choice, Dr. Redick ☺.
eks
Monday, December 8, 2008
Temple of Poseidon
The Greek’s principle Temple of Poseidon was located in the beautiful Sounjun region of southern Greece. The temple site was on a hill that jutted into the water, and the actual temple was located on top of the hill, surrounded on three sides by the Aegean Sea.
After we walked around the historic ruins for a while and enjoyed the amazing sea breeze, Dr. Redick asked us to reflect on the site and our experience. As I sat on a large, smooth rock and thoroughly enjoyed the wonderful breeze, the waves on the rocks below, and the blue sea, I realized that the location was perfect for a temple to a god of the sea.
I suppose in retrospect, it makes perfect sense to have a temple to the god of the water surrounded by the sea, but I didn’t make the connection at the beginning. I think the location would have been especially powerful when there was a storm raging. The location of the temple near the sea probably reminded the worshippers of Poseidon’s power and caused them to have more reverent fear. I can only imagine how incredible it would have been to be so tangibly confronted with the power of the god you came to worship and offer sacrifices to. The location was a constant reminder of the thing (ocean, sea, water) the people had no power over, but that their god was supposed to control.
It made me think about the location of our churches, and wish they could be in the middle of incredible landscapes that inspired worship of the true creator, omnipotent God.
eks
After we walked around the historic ruins for a while and enjoyed the amazing sea breeze, Dr. Redick asked us to reflect on the site and our experience. As I sat on a large, smooth rock and thoroughly enjoyed the wonderful breeze, the waves on the rocks below, and the blue sea, I realized that the location was perfect for a temple to a god of the sea.
I suppose in retrospect, it makes perfect sense to have a temple to the god of the water surrounded by the sea, but I didn’t make the connection at the beginning. I think the location would have been especially powerful when there was a storm raging. The location of the temple near the sea probably reminded the worshippers of Poseidon’s power and caused them to have more reverent fear. I can only imagine how incredible it would have been to be so tangibly confronted with the power of the god you came to worship and offer sacrifices to. The location was a constant reminder of the thing (ocean, sea, water) the people had no power over, but that their god was supposed to control.
It made me think about the location of our churches, and wish they could be in the middle of incredible landscapes that inspired worship of the true creator, omnipotent God.
eks
Michelangelo's David
I was familiar with Michelangelo’s statue of David before our Italy trip, and during the course of our first day in Florence saw about 1000 replicas of the infamous sculpture. We saw two life-size models, one located in the Piazza Michelangelo and another in the Piazza della Signoria, and countless souvenir versions that came in literally any size you could want.
The life-size replicas didn’t impress me, nor did any of the mini-versions catch my attention. Honestly, I wasn’t that excited about seeing Michelangelo’s David because the pictures I’d seen in history books or tourist magazines had never really interested me before. I was in for a treat, however.
Michelangelo’s David was STUNNING. Although I had seen pictures and replicas of it before, I was not prepared for the majesty of the actual statue. Neither pictures nor replicas do it justice. The grand scale of the statue, its placement in the museum, and the perfection of the body make it a stunning experience. You truly have to see the original.
It’s an incredible sculpture, and I think it’s very befitting of David that such a statue was made of him. It’s a perfect statue for him really, because the story of the piece can be an allegory for his life. There were many imperfections in the huge marble slab commissioned for the piece, and the original artist stopped the project quite early on, only beginning his feet and legs. The marble was neglected for 25 years after that, and then picked up again by Michelangelo, who spent 3 years sculpting the masterpiece.
David was a very sinful and flawed man, just like the marble used for the piece, and yet he had a penitent spirit and was called “a man after God’s own heart,” which is reflected in the beauty Michelangelo was able to create out of the imperfect marble. Even with his great imperfections, David sought God’s will and was obedient, and God was very pleased with his life. All in all, I find Michelangelo’s David to be a magnificent representation of the shepherd boy turned king.
eks
The life-size replicas didn’t impress me, nor did any of the mini-versions catch my attention. Honestly, I wasn’t that excited about seeing Michelangelo’s David because the pictures I’d seen in history books or tourist magazines had never really interested me before. I was in for a treat, however.
Michelangelo’s David was STUNNING. Although I had seen pictures and replicas of it before, I was not prepared for the majesty of the actual statue. Neither pictures nor replicas do it justice. The grand scale of the statue, its placement in the museum, and the perfection of the body make it a stunning experience. You truly have to see the original.
It’s an incredible sculpture, and I think it’s very befitting of David that such a statue was made of him. It’s a perfect statue for him really, because the story of the piece can be an allegory for his life. There were many imperfections in the huge marble slab commissioned for the piece, and the original artist stopped the project quite early on, only beginning his feet and legs. The marble was neglected for 25 years after that, and then picked up again by Michelangelo, who spent 3 years sculpting the masterpiece.
David was a very sinful and flawed man, just like the marble used for the piece, and yet he had a penitent spirit and was called “a man after God’s own heart,” which is reflected in the beauty Michelangelo was able to create out of the imperfect marble. Even with his great imperfections, David sought God’s will and was obedient, and God was very pleased with his life. All in all, I find Michelangelo’s David to be a magnificent representation of the shepherd boy turned king.
eks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
