Art.....

[huckelberry]

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. .........

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.

Markk, I like that quote you have about more implied. Bruegel does not spell out messages yet there seems to be a lot implied.He has painting about happy occasions and painting like this proverb collect showing how shallow people can be. It is a mystery of human experience he is contemplating

I do not see the negative attitude about religion you are noticing but because conclusions are left out of the question you have a right to your own reactions. I find his example of procession to the cross to be profoundly faithful. It is one of my favorite depictions of the subject. Triumph of death is a scream against the inhumanity of war within the context of a traditional subject. sorry I do not know how to post the image.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Proce ... _(Bruegel)

[huckelberry]

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.

Dr. Shades, with a moment or two of thought I realize that there are basic truths to what you state here. Paintings address the eye which sees basically like a camera. Objects have a specific shape projected by a lens. Volume is seen by changes in light and dark. In order to describe volume the changes must fit the shape (that flat area on the surface of the photo or painting). It could be added that we recognize images in a painting by the same details or particular shapes that a camera would see.

Yes, but my first reaction was no that is not the way. Painting can employ a variety of ways of molding values to describe volumes. Volumes can be very full or perhaps quite flat. Changes in value can be gently blended like a photo or can be much more abrupt. The material of paint and brush stroke can be made to stand out unlike a photo.

But most important paintings can start with an idea not just an image in front of the eye. That idea can be of the figure itself (the volume exists in the mind of the painter), the theatrical setting or implications. That underlying idea can guide everything, shapes, colors, light, dark, paint material, etc.

One might compare the Breugel and the Bierstadt examples upthread. The handling of light is less camera like with Breugel. He is using traditional idealized method of shading. They both use alternating light and dark while building spaces which are larger than we get to grasp in nature. A camera does some of that if the photographer searches for the moment light helps him paint the moment. (The photos can learn from the paintings.)

[Markk]

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. .........

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.

Markk, I like that quote you have about more implied. Bruegel does not spell out messages yet there seems to be a lot implied.He has painting about happy occasions and painting like this proverb collect showing how shallow people can be. It is a mystery of human experience he is contemplating

I do not see the negative attitude about religion you are noticing but because conclusions are left out of the question you have a right to your own reactions. I find his example of procession to the cross to be profoundly faithful. It is one of my favorite depictions of the subject. Triumph of death is a scream against the inhumanity of war within the context of a traditional subject. sorry I do not know how to post the image.

I struggled in my opinion whether he was being negative of not. I am certainly open otherwise, and you are correct as I read more. As I was reading early on he tended to be more of a humanist in my limited understanding of him, as many of the painters of his time were, also from what I read. But then as a read more it seems that he stayed with his Catholic roots and rejected the reformation, especially Calvinism.

I think where I errored was maybe his humanist traits, his focus on peasant life, evolved from the charity of his Catholic faith, as to not being opposed to it as a negative toward religion? Does that make sense?

I can see why he is one of your favorite artists.

Good stuff, Thanks.

[Markk]

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. .........

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.

Markk, I like that quote you have about more implied. Bruegel does not spell out messages yet there seems to be a lot implied.He has painting about happy occasions and painting like this proverb collect showing how shallow people can be. It is a mystery of human experience he is contemplating

I do not see the negative attitude about religion you are noticing but because conclusions are left out of the question you have a right to your own reactions. I find his example of procession to the cross to be profoundly faithful. It is one of my favorite depictions of the subject. Triumph of death is a scream against the inhumanity of war within the context of a traditional subject. sorry I do not know how to post the image.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Proce ... _(Bruegel)

Thanks for the link...

Right click, copy image address, paste to post, highlight....then click "insert image"

[Markk]

H-B,

This is heavy, and I am just getting into it.



This is the three Mary's and John, which really shows how off I was off on his being negative. There is so much to take in here. I am trying to interpret without cheating much. I see the two thieves on the cross in the circle in the back ground, with the three Mary's and John in the fore front (cheated here), but without cheating I see to the left, Christ with the cross behind them struggling with the weight of the cross being lead to the circle with the two thieves in the Biblical narrative.

I see, again without cheating, the painting mostly as a rush for the folks to get to the crucifixion almost as a spectacle. At the left there are some folks being held back by force, and I am not even remotely sure what that means? I am at a loss there, are they His followers? Equally, at the far left there appears to be men fighting, I again without cheating don't get it at all.

I also have no idea what the wheels on the poles represent. My first feelings are, given the Raven and tattered cloth, it might represent death...? Golgotha? However I don't see the cliff or the place of the skull.

H-B thanks for posting this painting it is awesome to reflect on. Lol even as when I type this on my patio, with my wife and dog at my side, with Marshal Tucker playing " Can't you See," in the back ground, good stuff.

[Dr. Shades]

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

Dr. Shades, with a moment or two of thought I realize that there are basic truths to what you state here. Paintings address the eye which sees basically like a camera. Objects have a specific shape projected by a lens. Volume is seen by changes in light and dark. In order to describe volume the changes must fit the shape (that flat area on the surface of the photo or painting). It could be added that we recognize images in a painting by the same details or particular shapes that a camera would see.

Yes, but my first reaction was no that is not the way. Painting can employ a variety of ways of molding values to describe volumes. Volumes can be very full or perhaps quite flat. Changes in value can be gently blended like a photo or can be much more abrupt. The material of paint and brush stroke can be made to stand out unlike a photo.

But most important paintings can start with an idea not just an image in front of the eye. That idea can be of the figure itself (the volume exists in the mind of the painter), the theatrical setting or implications. That underlying idea can guide everything, shapes, colors, light, dark, paint material, etc.

One might compare the Breugel and the Bierstadt examples upthread. The handling of light is less camera like with Breugel. He is using traditional idealized method of shading. They both use alternating light and dark while building spaces which are larger than we get to grasp in nature. A camera does some of that if the photographer searches for the moment light helps him paint the moment. (The photos can learn from the paintings.)

Thank you for telling me a lot of things I already know.

[Markk]

While reading more on Bruegel, I read he was influenced by "Hieronymus Bosch." On this rabbit trail from Bruegel to Bosch I came across his painting called "The Garden of Earthly Delights". It is oil on oak, with three pieces, hinged together. There is one larger center piece with two half pieces serving as doors. When closed it looks like this...



It is believed this depiction is the third day of creation. When opened up there is a very wild depiction of the creation story.



Where I am going with this is, I did not know that surrealism, went back so far. I saw this in Bruegel, but not to this degree. It is almost as if he ate mushrooms when he painted this. I am not sure how to compartmentalize this one.

I could maybe envision this blown up portion on a Beatles album in the late 60's, but not in a 16th century creation from a Dutch master.

[huckelberry]

Dr. Shades, with a moment or two of thought I realize that there are basic truths to what you state here. Paintings address the eye which sees basically like a camera. Objects have a specific shape projected by a lens. Volume is seen by changes in light and dark. In order to describe volume the changes must fit the shape (that flat area on the surface of the photo or painting). It could be added that we recognize images in a painting by the same details or particular shapes that a camera would see.

Yes, but my first reaction was no that is not the way. Painting can employ a variety of ways of molding values to describe volumes. Volumes can be very full or perhaps quite flat. Changes in value can be gently blended like a photo or can be much more abrupt. The material of paint and brush stroke can be made to stand out unlike a photo.

But most important paintings can start with an idea not just an image in front of the eye. That idea can be of the figure itself (the volume exists in the mind of the painter), the theatrical setting or implications. That underlying idea can guide everything, shapes, colors, light, dark, paint material, etc.

One might compare the Breugel and the Bierstadt examples upthread. The handling of light is less camera like with Breugel. He is using traditional idealized method of shading. They both use alternating light and dark while building spaces which are larger than we get to grasp in nature. A camera does some of that if the photographer searches for the moment light helps him paint the moment. (The photos can learn from the paintings.)

Thank you for telling me a lot of things I already know.

High shades I did not mean to step on your toe here I realize it's entirely possible that you understand the subject better than I do. You just chose not to say very much about it.

[Markk]

Thank you for telling me a lot of things I already know.

High shades I did not mean to step on your toe here I realize it's entirely possible that you understand the subject better than I do. You just chose not to say very much about it.

I appreciated your post. I had no idea whether Shades was being sarcastic, or it is really that simple, at least to one with the gift. Aside from in high school because we had to, I have never taken an art class.

From what you wrote and my pondering on the difference between the brush and photography it seems too me like both "gifts" come from the same place, yet come out using a different set of artistic "talents."

In painting an artist as you wrote uses a brush and..." shapes, colors, light, dark, paint material, etc." to create the "photo." While a photographer uses angles, lighting, and maybe most importantly...."vison" to capture the perfect moment in creating the "painting."

The painter has time for their vision, and the "photo" can grow, evolve, and adapt because of that, for lack of a better way to explain it, they can tweak it. While generally, the photographer in most cases has a nano second to create their "painting."

So given this, by Shades just saying "Simple. They just paint it as though it was a photograph," does not even remotely compute for someone like me. I initially responded to Shades but deleted it in that I was not sure if he was serious or not.

I hope this makes a little sense. Thanks.

[Morley]

Ha! Maybe it's true when it's said that any real discussion of Bruegel will inevitably lead to Bosch.

https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-cu ... s-ordinary

https://jhna.org/articles/bosch-to-brue ... yday-life/

https://peptalks.medium.com/bosch-and-b ... 34ab07fd95

https://bruegelnow.com/2012/01/16/exhib ... magnified/

https://albertis-window.com/2009/09/bruegel-as-bosch-2/

https://www.academia.edu/111114448/Art_ ... ng_puzzles