On my google Australia homepage I've got lots of little gizmos that I like to have handy access to. I get a new work of art each day - always art about the bible. Always very good, very detailed, very dark, very deep. Today was this one by Dutch painter Jan van Scorel (1495 - 1562). To me the painting looks far more recent than that time. It jumped out at me as though it had got mixed up in the wrong crowd entirely. Here are the accompanying notes about the painting:
"Van Scorel had just returned from Italy when he painted this work. Italian influences are visible in the landscape and in the figure of Mary Magdalene who resembles a Venetian courtesan. The tree springing from the decayed trunk symbolizes a new life after a bad start: Mary Magdalene has converted to become a follower of Jesus. In the background, in front of the overhanging rock, Mary is being borne up to Heaven. The top plank of this panel, with the sky and tree branches, was added in the second half of the 16th century. That part was not painted by van Scorel."
Well, what can I say? No wonder it leapt out at me. Or maybe not. I get annoyed with film-makers who insist that they can make a great book better by changing it. Imagine the poor dead van Scorel writhing in his grave while someone decided to improve his work.
10 comments:
I LOVE Dutch painters. Incredibly talented artists. This one is right up there.
It is an interesting take on Mary Magdeline.
But the one who added to this painting, he does not have anything on The Big Underwear Man!
Michelangelo was a genius, no doubt, but he was in love with the nude. No one dared tell him not to paint them, and he filled the Sistine Chapel with them.
Well, it is a church, after all, and once pope Leo the 10th died, the new pope decided he just could not do all those naked people.
Have you ever wondered at Michelangelos Birth of Adam... the one where God and Adam are casually reaching for each other... Have you ever wondered why God is in that little pink number?
God originally was as nude as Adam.
The artist they hired to copy Michelangelos brushstroke and dress his nudes was called 'The Big Underwear Man'.
Probably for the rest of his life.
This pic was bugging me.
I'm like...What is it about this painting that makes me feel so angry?
I finally realized it is the look on her face. She looks angry. Her posture is angry, upset, annoyed.
This is so not how I picture her in my head.
The painting itself is top quality, but that look on her face just freezes my blood.
Is it just me or are her hands two different sizes?
Now, this is where I'm out of the conversation. I know the painting jumped out at me for some strange reason. But I've no idea why. I thought was beautiful if doll/porcelain-like - so cold, yes. And the look on her face is as though the artist has just intruded on a private moment with a statement or gesture. And she's not impressed. "If looks could kill" kind of look. But no. I have absolutely no idea at all. I'm glad you mentioned it though. It shows that I need to be more intuitive when I'm looking at these paintings.
And her hands - Christy I can't even work out those optical illusions so I wouldn't know if they are the same size. Or not.
She really does look mad as hell.
The more I look at her, the more angry she seems.
It really is not something you would expect in a representation of Mary Magdeline.
It is a very cold painting.
No - that's certainly not what you'd expect. It's such a contradiction. Would it matter so much if it were not a representation of someone so *holy*? If it were just a woman, any woman.
Good question.
Perhaps it is because she is 'holy' the standard of her changes,
The clothing also throws me off.
It is a beautiful painting, but once you study it, it just seems damn odd.
This painter was incredibly talented. I just don't 'get it' though.
She looks more like a Grand Odalesque than Mary.
Her fine robes but that unkempt hair looks like she was just ravished by someone that disgusts her.
Hmmmmm.
I'm not seeing that level of rage at all. Cold disdain perhaps. I clicked on it and just looked at her eyes in the bigger picture for the longest time and her face. I didn't feel at all disturbed.
But the fabric she is holding - and in those amazing sleeves - you can feel it. And be very very pleased that the fabric doesn't crease up and the garment doesn't need ironing.
More practical than artistic here, sadly.
Cold distain is a good description.
It is a strange interpretation to me, but maybe to the Dutch it makes perfect sense.
Post a Comment