We then began to look at some artists that used both text and image to evoke thought and mystery. Magritte "this is not a pipe" was used as an example to show how two contradicting signs lead to a paradox of confusion - things that we see in art are just a representation of the real thing.
Ferdinand de Saussure created his own definition of a 'sign'. He said that, "the sign is the whole that results from the association from the signifier with the signified". What he means by this is that a sign becomes a sign, after being interpreted by the observer - it has to be understood to have meaning.
Furthermore, Charles Pierce claims that 'nothing is a sign, unless it is interpreted as a sign'. Pierce's 'Triad of Semiotics' demonstrated this:
We then moved onto image analysis, and looked into how different words have different meanings and connotations e.g in varying cultures. Denotation is a the description of a thing, whereas the connotation of something is the meaning or symbolism. These definitions helped us to begin to analyse different artworks, in order to learn more about the context and purpose of the piece.
The Ambassadors (1533) by Hans Holbein, was used as an example whereby we could start to analyse in close detail. During class discussion we noticed that colours and objects were used to connote wealth, whereas skulls and broken strings were used to indicate the idea of death. Many of the items had a polysemic meaning, as they could be interpreted differently to give contrasting meanings.
'The Ambassadors', Hans Holbein, 1533
Image Analysis Task
Using the skills that we had acquired in the lecture, we put them to practice by analysing our own image and from which, we began writing a formal and contextual analysis from.
Formal Analysis
'Monkeys and Spaniels Playing' is an oil painting by the artist Francis Barlow. It was painted in 1661, and measures 105.5 x 132 cm. The most obvious thing is the use of earthy colours, hues of orange and beige dominate the piece, and with the addition of complimentary deep blues, the picture seems balanced and harmonious. Overall, the image is very dark, with the foreground slightly illuminated and the golden clouds in the background providing a rich glow.
The image depicts 3D forms that are presented in full tone to show their realistic form and shape. Barlow used precise line to create a hyper-realistic representation of the animals - which was particularly new in his time. Visually, he has represented and conveyed the sense of texture very well, especially in the fur of the animals.
Although the image is balanced in colour, it could be argued that the subjects in the piece create the sense of imbalance. It seems that Barlow has created the sense of chaos in the right side of the picture, whereas the left seems to be relatively calm and tranquil. This technique could have been used to create an off-centre focal point, which would create a slightly more interesting composition - one that is more captivating to the eye. However as a whole, Barlow has been able to capture 'variety' in his painting. It is upon closer inspection that you start to notice the immense detail included in the scene, for example the fly on the wall. So although it could be argued that the focus is off-centre, this has not lead Barlow to neglect part of the piece. Instead he has focused in great detail to the whole scene, and painted in the same amount of precision throughout.
After researching the painting, it has become evident that 'the oil paint was applied with small, smooth brushes for the animals, and architecture and with longer and stiffer ones in the landscape' [1]. This technique could have been used in order to create the illusion of distance and depth in the scene.
Overall, this oil painting leads the eye to discover the hidden details in the piece. Barlow was known for his animal paintings, and is believed to be the 'earliest British born animal painter' [2]. Furthermore, this piece is believed to have been commissioned by a pet owner, who would then hang the painting above a door in their home. The inclusion of both dogs and monkeys could indicate that the owners were particularly wealthy; i.e to firstly commission the piece, and secondly to own such exotic animals. [2]
Although this particular painting isn't perhaps Barlow's most recognised piece, it certainly demonstrates his immense skill and precision in portraying challenging scenes involving animals.
Context Analysis
The subject matter shows both spaniels and monkeys playing together on a stone construction and illuminated golden-hued pot. The photo-realist style suggests that perhaps Barlow painted from life, this comes from an infrared examination, which revealed that the dogs had been laid in with thick, boldly applied black under paint, which provides a shadow to the form. On the other hand, the monkeys are not under painted, indicating that they were not drawn from life and instead from studio patterns. [1]
Animal paintings at this time were largely associated with decorative arts and interior design [2], which suggests that this piece was commissioned by someone who owned such animals, and therefore were from a higher class. Although no symbolism is particularly evident in this piece, it could be argued that the way that part of the picture is highlighted, this could be to 'highlight' the superiority of these people in society (the monkeys and dogs symbolising the higher class). In contrast, the lower class people could be symbolised through the use of the darkened landscape in the background, almost signifying that they are often forgotten or lost in communities - only the wealthiest were focused upon, or viewed as 'important'. This interpretation however, is not in any way suggested by Barlow himself, but is instead just one possible interpretation of the piece when reading into the signs and connotations of the painting.
The painting is currently in the Tate Britain (room 1650). It was purchased with assistance from the 'Friends of the Tate Gallery' in 1989 [2]. Now the paintings function is to be observed, appreciated and to teach about the artist himself and the art in the 1600s. Whereas before, it is believed that such a piece would have been used to decorate a home, and could have possibly hung above a door. This change in function and purpose is common of paintings from the past, as they are arguably treasured more in the present than they were in the past.
The only thing about this painting that remains a mystery, is the fly/moth on the wall. Maybe there is a hidden meaning behind it, or maybe it is simply there for Barlow to allow the animals to 'play' or to immerse them further into the scene? This, and whether the painting at all has any hidden meaning, will remain a mystery.
[1] Tate (2005). [online]. Monkeys and Dogs Playing 1661 by Francis Barlow. Rica Jones and Joyce Townsend. Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/about/projects/tudor-stuart-technical-research/technical-entries/francis-barlow-2 [Accessed on 1st November 2016]
[2] Tate (2016). [online]. Francis Barlow, Monkeys and Dogs Playing. Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/barlow-monkeys-and-dogs-playing-t05572 [Accessed on 1st November 2016]
'Monkeys and Spaniels Playing', Francis Barlow, 1661
Formal Analysis
'Monkeys and Spaniels Playing' is an oil painting by the artist Francis Barlow. It was painted in 1661, and measures 105.5 x 132 cm. The most obvious thing is the use of earthy colours, hues of orange and beige dominate the piece, and with the addition of complimentary deep blues, the picture seems balanced and harmonious. Overall, the image is very dark, with the foreground slightly illuminated and the golden clouds in the background providing a rich glow.
The image depicts 3D forms that are presented in full tone to show their realistic form and shape. Barlow used precise line to create a hyper-realistic representation of the animals - which was particularly new in his time. Visually, he has represented and conveyed the sense of texture very well, especially in the fur of the animals.
Although the image is balanced in colour, it could be argued that the subjects in the piece create the sense of imbalance. It seems that Barlow has created the sense of chaos in the right side of the picture, whereas the left seems to be relatively calm and tranquil. This technique could have been used to create an off-centre focal point, which would create a slightly more interesting composition - one that is more captivating to the eye. However as a whole, Barlow has been able to capture 'variety' in his painting. It is upon closer inspection that you start to notice the immense detail included in the scene, for example the fly on the wall. So although it could be argued that the focus is off-centre, this has not lead Barlow to neglect part of the piece. Instead he has focused in great detail to the whole scene, and painted in the same amount of precision throughout.
After researching the painting, it has become evident that 'the oil paint was applied with small, smooth brushes for the animals, and architecture and with longer and stiffer ones in the landscape' [1]. This technique could have been used in order to create the illusion of distance and depth in the scene.
Overall, this oil painting leads the eye to discover the hidden details in the piece. Barlow was known for his animal paintings, and is believed to be the 'earliest British born animal painter' [2]. Furthermore, this piece is believed to have been commissioned by a pet owner, who would then hang the painting above a door in their home. The inclusion of both dogs and monkeys could indicate that the owners were particularly wealthy; i.e to firstly commission the piece, and secondly to own such exotic animals. [2]
Although this particular painting isn't perhaps Barlow's most recognised piece, it certainly demonstrates his immense skill and precision in portraying challenging scenes involving animals.
Context Analysis
The subject matter shows both spaniels and monkeys playing together on a stone construction and illuminated golden-hued pot. The photo-realist style suggests that perhaps Barlow painted from life, this comes from an infrared examination, which revealed that the dogs had been laid in with thick, boldly applied black under paint, which provides a shadow to the form. On the other hand, the monkeys are not under painted, indicating that they were not drawn from life and instead from studio patterns. [1]
Animal paintings at this time were largely associated with decorative arts and interior design [2], which suggests that this piece was commissioned by someone who owned such animals, and therefore were from a higher class. Although no symbolism is particularly evident in this piece, it could be argued that the way that part of the picture is highlighted, this could be to 'highlight' the superiority of these people in society (the monkeys and dogs symbolising the higher class). In contrast, the lower class people could be symbolised through the use of the darkened landscape in the background, almost signifying that they are often forgotten or lost in communities - only the wealthiest were focused upon, or viewed as 'important'. This interpretation however, is not in any way suggested by Barlow himself, but is instead just one possible interpretation of the piece when reading into the signs and connotations of the painting.
The painting is currently in the Tate Britain (room 1650). It was purchased with assistance from the 'Friends of the Tate Gallery' in 1989 [2]. Now the paintings function is to be observed, appreciated and to teach about the artist himself and the art in the 1600s. Whereas before, it is believed that such a piece would have been used to decorate a home, and could have possibly hung above a door. This change in function and purpose is common of paintings from the past, as they are arguably treasured more in the present than they were in the past.
The only thing about this painting that remains a mystery, is the fly/moth on the wall. Maybe there is a hidden meaning behind it, or maybe it is simply there for Barlow to allow the animals to 'play' or to immerse them further into the scene? This, and whether the painting at all has any hidden meaning, will remain a mystery.
[1] Tate (2005). [online]. Monkeys and Dogs Playing 1661 by Francis Barlow. Rica Jones and Joyce Townsend. Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/about/projects/tudor-stuart-technical-research/technical-entries/francis-barlow-2 [Accessed on 1st November 2016]
[2] Tate (2016). [online]. Francis Barlow, Monkeys and Dogs Playing. Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/barlow-monkeys-and-dogs-playing-t05572 [Accessed on 1st November 2016]
No comments:
Post a Comment