Art.....

[Markk]

In the painting below, in my opinion it is a mixture of normalcy, religion, demonic stuff, and I think, deep perceptions of 16th century everyday life.

In the first building on the left, upstairs, in my interpretation there is a man with a tooth ache in the first dormer window, and to his left there is a "dentist" pulling a tooth of a man. This seems like it might be a normal occurrence; as with the two men talking while shearing their sheep below them, and two women gossiping. And then in the lower left hand corner there is a woman holding down a demon while she appears to be looking at maybe her husband that has a knife, with one shoe on, beating his head against that a wall as if he was possessed? At the center of the canvass there is a fox sitting at a table with a bib on, with a plate in front of him.... waiting for food? There is just so much here.

Is there a name for this kind of "style?"

The painting is an attempt to illustrate a number of proverbs and proverbial expressions common in the Netherlands of Bruegel's time - hence its apparently chaotic and bizarre content. You will find a full list of the proverbs illustrated in the painting here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlandish_Proverbs

Thanks,

Lol I wondered why what I thought was second sheep looked different? It indeed looks like a pig, The proverb is ...." One shears sheep, the other shears pigs , One has all the advantages, the other none "

This will be fun going through it.

[Morley]

Great discussion.

[huckelberry]

In the painting below, in my opinion it is a mixture of normalcy, religion, demonic stuff, and I think, deep perceptions of 16th century everyday life.

In the first building on the left, upstairs, in my interpretation there is a man with a tooth ache in the first dormer window, and to his left there is a "dentist" pulling a tooth of a man. This seems like it might be a normal occurrence; as with the two men talking while shearing their sheep below them, and two women gossiping. And then in the lower left hand corner there is a woman holding down a demon while she appears to be looking at maybe her husband that has a knife, with one shoe on, beating his head against that a wall as if he was possessed? At the center of the canvass there is a fox sitting at a table with a bib on, with a plate in front of him.... waiting for food? There is just so much here.

Is there a name for this kind of "style?"

The painting is an attempt to illustrate a number of proverbs and proverbial expressions common in the Netherlands of Bruegel's time - hence its apparently chaotic and bizarre content. You will find a full list of the proverbs illustrated in the painting here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlandish_Proverbs

Chaps link is interesting, thanks. I had not previously read the specifics for the collections of proverbs. I had just viewed the painting as a compendium of fascinating images clustered about human foibles, follies, and difficulties. I am almost inclined to think of the proverbs as a device to help imagine such a plethora of fascinating images.

I have a small paperback of Bruegel reproductions. It is good for the variety but the quality of the reproduction is not close to this image Markk has posted. On my phone it can expand to surprising detail. The original painting is large so there is room for all that detail. What a window into common living at that time, buildings, clothing etc.

Markk, I think your observations about the space in the paintings makes sense. Bruegel has a very good ability to portray three dimensional forms. Because they are treated as three dimensional just having them get smaller as they are positioned behind each a sense of a lot of space is created. If he uses any mechanical perspective plotting he keeps that well hidden. I suspect the general idea of things appearing smaller the further away they are was sufficient.

[Markk]

H-B wrote....Markk , I think your observations about the space in the paintings makes sense. Bruegel has a very good ability to portray three dimensional forms. Because they are treated as three dimensional just having them get smaller as they are positioned behind each a sense of a lot of space is created. If he uses any mechanical perspective plotting he keeps that well hidden. I suspect the general idea of things appearing smaller the further away they are was sufficient.

Maybe you can help me out here. I would not consider myself an "artist", at least with traditional drawing and painting. While I do paint and draw, I am my worse critic...I force my self into places I have no business being, and in my opinion I suck big time. I binge paint trying hard, then crash hard with my dissatisfaction. I struggle in finding my "limits" so to speak. I make it up with wood and metal work which I am comfortable with.

My question is, when what I call a "true artist", like a Bruegel, takes a two dimensional scene or thought, onto a canvas, to a three dimensional work of art...how do they do it, what do they see that others can't? It just blows me away.

I hope this makes sense, if it doesn't, I get it.

Thanks.

[Markk]

Depth in a painting? We looked at Grama Moses, and she was kind off all over the place, in a very genuine way. Then Bruegel with a very rich depth, maybe more imagined? And as H_B wrote not mechanical and probably very natural.

I googled depth in a painting and one of my first hits was this by Bierstadt. He is know for "depth" in his sweeping landscapes, and I was amazed by these images, but what drew me to his work was his depth in a "tight window."

I am blown away by this one. Like Morley wrote earlier about a painting vs a photo, this, for me, is a perfect example of what he meant.

{edit} as I look at this one more the shadowing of the statue in the forefront is truly amazing, and below it is a person in the same shadow, that I missed the first time around.

{edit#2} the name of the sunlight and shadow, which is obvious.



This is one of his landscapes....the depth here is awesome in my opinion...

[Gunnar]

Depth in a painting? We looked at Grama Moses, and she was kind off all over the place, in a very genuine way. Then Bruegel with a very rich depth, maybe more imagined? And as H_B wrote not mechanical and probably very natural.

I googled depth in a painting and one of my first hits was this by Bierstadt. He is know for "depth" in his sweeping landscapes, and I was amazed by these images, but what drew me to his work was his depth in a "tight window."

I am blown away by this one. Like Morley wrote earlier about a painting vs a photo, this, for me, is a perfect example of what he meant.

{edit} as I look at this one more the shadowing of the statue in the forefront is truly amazing, and below it is a person in the same shadow, that I missed the first time around.

{edit#2} the name of the sunlight and shadow, which is obvious.



This is one of his landscapes....the depth here is awesome in my opinion...

Yes! I think I see what you mean, especially in your examples by Bruegel and Bierstadt. They seem so precise and realistic and detailed and yet seem somehow more "real" and more deeply informative and evocative than any mere photo I have ever seen. I marvel at how they could have achieved that!

[Dr. Shades]

My question is, when what I call a "true artist", like a Bruegel, takes a two dimensional scene or thought, onto a canvas, to a three dimensional work of art...how do they do it, what do they see that others can't? It just blows me away.

Simple. They just paint it as though it was a photograph.

[Jersey Girl]

Is there a name for this kind of "style?"

Yes. It's called Realism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(arts)

If you want to see the direct opposite of Realism, search up Salvador Dali. His style is called Surrealism.

There are many art styles. Realism, Surrealism, Cubism, Impressionism, and many more. I prefer Impressionism.

You should take an art history class. And next time you go to the East Coast, go into NYC to the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art and see some of the work of these artists in person. It'll blow your mind. GO there.

You should also do more threads like this. You shine in this area, Markk.

Website links: Both of these are on 5th Avenue.

Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art: https://www.moma.org/

Also go to The Guggenheim: https://www.guggenheim.org/

[Markk]

Is there a name for this kind of "style?"

Yes. It's called Realism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(arts)

If you want to see the direct opposite of Realism, search up Salvador Dali. His style is called Surrealism.

There are many art styles. Realism, Surrealism, Cubism, Impressionism, and many more. I prefer Impressionism.

You should take an art history class. And next time you go to the East Coast, go into NYC to the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art and see some of the work of these artists in person. It'll blow your mind. GO there.

You should also do more threads like this. You shine in this area, Markk.

Website links: Both of these are on 5th Avenue.

Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art: https://www.moma.org/

Also go to The Guggenheim: https://www.guggenheim.org/

Thanks.

My question was a bit deeper though. It was in regard to the painting where Bruegel shows everyday life, while mixing in what appears to be a negative view of religion and the super natural. Chap cleared up why he did it in this particular master piece, it was a series of proverbs.

I did some reading on his style and while he was a pioneer of the later realism movement in the mid 19th century, especially with his focus on the peasant, but in my opinion there is so much more. One site describes his style, again as a pioneer, as "genre painting."

One definition is.... " Genre painting (or petit genre), a form of genre art, depicts aspects of everyday life by portraying ordinary people engaged in common activities.[1] One common definition of a genre scene is that it shows figures to whom no identity can be attached either individually or collectively, thus distinguishing it from history paintings (also called grand genre) and portraits. A work would often be considered as a genre work even if it could be shown that the artist had used a known person—a member of his family, say—as a model. In this case it would depend on whether the work was likely to have been intended by the artist to be perceived as a portrait—sometimes a subjective question. The depictions can be realistic, imagined, or romanticized by the artist. Because of their familiar and frequently sentimental subject matter, genre paintings have often proven popular with the bourgeoisie, or middle class." (wiki)

Now I am going to go out on a limb here and say in my opinion, that "Netherlandish Proverbs" is a mixture of genre/realism with his subjective and what appears negative and imagined view of religion and the super natural.

Keep in mind that Bruegel lived in the middle of Luther's restoration movement, and I can maybe see this in the Proverbs painting. The Netherlands being deeply affected by reformed theology, he seems to be struggling with whatever faith he had, if any.

I found a quote by a "Abraham Ortelius," which read " in all his works more is implied than depicted." What a great quote, have fun putting that in perspective. I see it as saying he is so engrossed in what he wants to say in his work, it is his way of getting more said, on such a small piece of substrate. When I look at the Proverb painting and ponder on that quote, it makes a lot of sense for me.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

No serious discussion about art can be complete without including Mormon artist Jon McNaughton: