Caravaggio - Michelangelo Merisi da
Michael W Cook
have a few very knowledgeable 'Art' buffs on the group.
Saw an excellent programme last night on Caravaggio on BBC Four, I just
caught the beginning of the programme and ended up watching it all until
1am.
It was a sort of investigation into his murder, but covered his life story
as well, amazing guy and such wonderful paintings. As a cameraman I
certainly appreciate his dramatic use of light in all his work, especially
seeing it get darker and darker as his life progresses.
I enjoyed Derek Jarman's film about him, which I saw many years ago, but
found the 'Gay' claim he staked a little over the top. But saying that,
Jarmen's cinematography is faultless and his images certainly captured
Caravaggio's style.
It seems he was a pretty disturbed character, and due to his lifestyle
gained himself many enemies. The links with the Knights of St John I found
interesting, especially as I've studied their history on the Island of
Rhodes before they moved to Malta.
What do folks think here of them being responsible for his death ?
Last nights presenter also believed he wasn't gay, but the programme
certainly gave the impression he had a liking for both sexes.
Regards
Michael
Frank Martin
lucida" to draw his paintings? David Hockney has proposed
that the art work of Carravagio and others is too perfect to
have been done freehand, and that various optical devices
were used as a guide to foreshortening and perspective.
"Michael W Cook" <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in
message news:BAB1199B.7A4%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
Michael W Cook
fr...@general.com.au wrote on 3/4/03 1:56 am:
> Did they mention the possibility that he used a "camera
> lucida" to draw his paintings? David Hockney has proposed
> that the art work of Carravagio and others is too perfect to
> have been done freehand, and that various optical devices
> were used as a guide to foreshortening and perspective.
No, I'm afraid they didn't, but I know what you are talking about, I saw a
programme a couple of years ago suggesting Leonardo possibly used these
techniques.
The programme tended to focus on Caravaggio as a person, connecting certain
incidents in his life with his paintings, but all the time working around
the theme of his murder and those who could be associated with it.
Cheers
Michael
Michael W Cook
mwc...@crusader-productions.com
Castles, Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
--
Frank Martin
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0090798
though his love life is poorly treated.
Also I've read his biography and he and his associates were
into politics and brawling with rapiers.
"Michael W Cook" <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in
message news:BAB20FF6.827%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
E. C. Lee
> Not quite on-topic for me, but at least it's an attempt, especially as we
> have a few very knowledgeable 'Art' buffs on the group.
>
> Saw an excellent programme last night on Caravaggio on BBC Four, I just
> caught the beginning of the programme and ended up watching it all until
> 1am.
>
> It was a sort of investigation into his murder, but covered his life story
> as well, amazing guy and such wonderful paintings.
I SO agree!
As a cameraman I
> certainly appreciate his dramatic use of light in all his work, especially
> seeing it get darker and darker as his life progresses.
You aren't the only cameraman to have this reaction! Caravaggiesque
lighting has been very popular throughout the history of filmmaking.
*Film noir* for example.
>
> I enjoyed Derek Jarman's film about him, which I saw many years ago, but
> found the 'Gay' claim he staked a little over the top. But saying that,
> Jarmen's cinematography is faultless and his images certainly captured
> Caravaggio's style.
>
IMHO, Jarmen is intentionally over the top. That's part of his style.
Obviously, he wasn't making a documentary! ;-) A fascinating movie
on many levels. I'd love to see Jarmon's story of Saint Sebastian.
Did you ever catch that?
> It seems he was a pretty disturbed character, and due to his lifestyle
> gained himself many enemies. The links with the Knights of St John I found
> interesting, especially as I've studied their history on the Island of
> Rhodes before they moved to Malta.
>
I wish I was more familiar with his life. I knew about the homosexual
stuff (though I wouldn't be surprised if he was bisexual), his general
troublemaking, and about the murder that forced him to leave the city,
but not all the details. I keep meaning to read more about him, there
are some wonderful books. Never got the chance. I have a small book
that I use as a source for his pictures, maybe I'll look through it.
One of my favorites of his is the Baccus where he's offering the wine
glass into the viewer's space. I like how it uses the element of
time. If you notice the position of his hand in the knot, at the next
moment he'd be disrobed. I also like how he used of light as part of
the narrative in "The Calling of St. Matthew". And then there's the
interesting perspective with the horse's ass in the spectator's face
in "Conversion of St. Paul". Or his self portrait as the severed head
of Goliath. Hmmmm. I could go on and on. He truly is incredible.
> What do folks think here of them being responsible for his death ?
>
Sounds very possible. If I recall, he did something pretty serious
that pissed them off. There's an excellent book on him, I think it's
by Hugh Honour, but I'm not sure. I'll try to take a look at it and
let you know if I find anything interesting.
> Last nights presenter also believed he wasn't gay, but the programme
> certainly gave the impression he had a liking for both sexes.
>
I wonder why didn't they believe it?
Eve
E. C. Lee
> Did they mention the possibility that he used a "camera
> lucida" to draw his paintings? David Hockney has proposed
> that the art work of Carravagio and others is too perfect to
> have been done freehand, and that various optical devices
> were used as a guide to foreshortening and perspective.
>
the fact that things were "too perfect" but that some of the elements
of the compositions were taken from different perspectives and then
reconstructed. He suggested that there was the use of mirrors for
some of this.
Eve
Frank Martin
"E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0cfed5b.03040...@posting.google.com...
William Black
If you saw the BBC show where Hockney did his demonstrations he proved that
some compositions actually needed a camera obscura, and that it moved
around, otherwise the picture couldn't actually be seen as painted,
especially some interesting 'out of focus' effects.
.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Michael Kuettner
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:b6kcr4$b2n$5...@sparta.btinternet.com...
a technical school because otherwise he couldn't have constructed
his helicopter ?
There's a difference between a genius and a common man.
All that Hockney has shown is that _he_ would need a camera
obscura.
What would Hockney need to invent Einsteins works ?
Sorry to sound a little contrary, but I love Caravaggio.
He was a genius painter (as opposed to Hockney) and who knows
how he saw things ( how many giraffes did Dali burn for his painting
and how many watches did he melt ?)
How many people did Picasso cut into cubes before painting
them cubistic ? After all, he never saw them in cubistic pieces.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael W Cook
afro...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/4/03 1:29 am:
Yes, standard fare for him I thought, although I do like his work in
general. His house used to be near where you are going in the summer - Rye
and Winchelsea - it's where he filmed one of his last movies when he was
dying of Aids 'The Garden'.
>> It seems he was a pretty disturbed character, and due to his lifestyle
>> gained himself many enemies. The links with the Knights of St John I found
>> interesting, especially as I've studied their history on the Island of
>> Rhodes before they moved to Malta.
>>
> I wish I was more familiar with his life. I knew about the homosexual
> stuff (though I wouldn't be surprised if he was bisexual), his general
> troublemaking, and about the murder that forced him to leave the city,
> but not all the details. I keep meaning to read more about him, there
> are some wonderful books. Never got the chance. I have a small book
> that I use as a source for his pictures, maybe I'll look through it.
I knew very little about him before the programme, except that I have always
liked his work, it's certainly not the norm his religious stuff, very
powerful, what on earth was going through his mind at the time is what
interests me. His later stuff is quite haunting, yet still pulls the eye
with it's composition and the characters he painted.
> One of my favorites of his is the Baccus where he's offering the wine
> glass into the viewer's space. I like how it uses the element of
> time. If you notice the position of his hand in the knot, at the next
> moment he'd be disrobed.
Very pretty boy with collagen lips ;-)
To me the shadow on the wine bottle and the nearby leaf looks wrong.
>I also like how he used of light as part of
> the narrative in "The Calling of St. Matthew".
From his Contarelli Chapel commission, they didn't show enough of this I'm
afraid, but I've found it on a good site which shows all his work.
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/c/caravagg/
> And then there's the
> interesting perspective with the horse's ass in the spectator's face
> in "Conversion of St. Paul". Or his self portrait as the severed head
> of Goliath. Hmmmm. I could go on and on. He truly is incredible.
He is, actually they made quite a thing about the horses arse :-)
>> What do folks think here of them being responsible for his death ?
>>
> Sounds very possible. If I recall, he did something pretty serious
> that pissed them off. There's an excellent book on him, I think it's
> by Hugh Honour, but I'm not sure. I'll try to take a look at it and
> let you know if I find anything interesting.
Well, according to the programme, they believed he could have committed
buggery while with the knights, who punished him and threw him into the
Castle dungeon. It's still there. Anyhow, he escaped and was making his way
back to Naples when he was murdered after his boat had left without him with
his baggage.
They believed it was the knights who did it, but the family of Tomassoni,
who he murdered before fleeing Naples could have been responsible.
>
>> Last nights presenter also believed he wasn't gay, but the programme
>> certainly gave the impression he had a liking for both sexes.
>>
> I wonder why didn't they believe it?
Because they reckon he was shagging Tomassoni's wife, which led to the brawl
where he was murdered. They also say he often frequented the prostitutes of
Naples.
Regards
E. C. Lee
> in article f0cfed5b.03040...@posting.google.com, E. C. Lee at
> afro...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/4/03 1:29 am:
>
> > Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
> > news:<BAB1199B.7A4%mwc...@crusader-productions.com>...
>
> From his Contarelli Chapel commission, they didn't show enough of this I'm
> afraid, but I've found it on a good site which shows all his work.
>
> http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/c/caravagg/
>
>
"on topic" as it links to a bunch of art from the Middle Ages. The
option of choosing different music to go with the pictures is
wonderful. And I can hardly wait to have the time to take one of the
virtual tours.
<snip>
> >> What do folks think here of them being responsible for his death ?
> >>
> > Sounds very possible. If I recall, he did something pretty serious
> > that pissed them off. There's an excellent book on him, I think it's
> > by Hugh Honour, but I'm not sure. I'll try to take a look at it and
> > let you know if I find anything interesting.
>
> Well, according to the programme, they believed he could have committed
> buggery while with the knights, who punished him and threw him into the
> Castle dungeon. It's still there. Anyhow, he escaped and was making his way
> back to Naples when he was murdered after his boat had left without him with
> his baggage.
>
> They believed it was the knights who did it, but the family of Tomassoni,
> who he murdered before fleeing Naples could have been responsible.
> >
> >> Last nights presenter also believed he wasn't gay, but the programme
> >> certainly gave the impression he had a liking for both sexes.
> >>
> > I wonder why didn't they believe it?
>
> Because they reckon he was shagging Tomassoni's wife, which led to the brawl
> where he was murdered. They also say he often frequented the prostitutes of
> Naples.
>
Well, all of that could be. Perhaps the urge to find out will give me
insentive to do further research? ;-)
Eve
Martin Reboul
Frank Martin wrote...
> I remember there's a movie on this:
>
> http://us.imdb.com/Title?0090798
>
> though his love life is poorly treated.
>
> Also I've read his biography and he and his associates were
> into politics and brawling with rapiers.
Quite common at the time - Buvenito Cellini's autobiography (one of the
first ever written) is a fascinating insight into the world of 'art' and
artists in the early 16th C. Packed with violence (he frequently killed
people because he was annoyed with them), it also quite shamelessly (indeed
innocently) includes some peculiar (to most of us) sexual behaviour -
strange, effusive affection for young men around him and even transvestism,
though there's no doubt he was a raging heterosexual. A bizarre and very
dangerous world indeed I thought? Not the sort of chap you'd want to owe
money to, or meet on a dark night when he was in one of his moods. Deeply
religious though.... how often these things seem to go together!
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
William Black wrote...
>
> E. C. Lee wrote...
> > Frank Martin wrote...
> > > Did they mention the possibility that he used a "camera
> > > lucida" to draw his paintings? David Hockney has proposed
> > > that the art work of Carravagio and others is too perfect to
> > > have been done freehand, and that various optical devices
> > > were used as a guide to foreshortening and perspective.
> > >
> > Hockney has some interesting theories. If I recall, it wasn't just
> > the fact that things were "too perfect" but that some of the elements
> > of the compositions were taken from different perspectives and then
> > reconstructed. He suggested that there was the use of mirrors for
> > some of this.
>
> If you saw the BBC show where Hockney did his demonstrations he proved
that
> some compositions actually needed a camera obscura, and that it moved
> around, otherwise the picture couldn't actually be seen as painted,
> especially some interesting 'out of focus' effects.
Seeing that most of Hockneys' paintings look as flat as pancakes AND out of
focus, I don't think he can accept that they were just bloody good artists!
Vermeer is often accused of using this technique (and others) but there is
little or no evidence to prove it.
Any artist paints a picture by looking at seperate elements in said picture
from 'different perspectives' - they are not photographs, thay take time to
do. Many use forced perspective (which a straight camera cannot do and the
eye cannot quickly detect) for 'effect'.
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
E. C. Lee wrote...
> Michael W Cook wrote
> > E. C. Lee wrote
> >
> > > Michael W Cook wrote...
> <snip>
> >
> > From his Contarelli Chapel commission, they didn't show enough of this
I'm
> > afraid, but I've found it on a good site which shows all his work.
> >
> > http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/c/caravagg/
> >
> >
> Whoa! What a great site! Really nice illos. It even puts us back
> "on topic" as it links to a bunch of art from the Middle Ages. The
> option of choosing different music to go with the pictures is
> wonderful. And I can hardly wait to have the time to take one of the
> virtual tours.
An excellent sight and site!
I particularly love 'Judith Beheading Holofernes' - you can almost hear her
saying "this knife's a bit blunt - haven't you got a decent one?" My new
desktop wallpaper...
Marvellous, immaculate work - Hockney, eat your heart out!
Cheers
Martin
Frank Martin
St Catherine of Alexandria.
"Martin Reboul" <mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:b7vmj4$4aj$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Drew Nicholson
> For a view of the rapiers then in use, see the painting of
> St Catherine of Alexandria.
>
>
Frank Martin
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/index1.html
"Drew Nicholson" <anicho...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:cOLoa.283911$OV.332506@rwcrnsc54...
Drew Nicholson
"Frank Martin" <fr...@general.com.au> wrote in message
news:b803i3$6ls$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
E. C. Lee
I tend to agree with you. Hockney didn't "prove" anything and
Carravaggio very well may have been brilliant enough (and visually
astute) to do all this on his own. It's just a possible theory. Not
quite as vast a leap as spacemen coming and erecting Stonehenge, of
course.
Eve
Simon Pugh
<afro...@yahoo.com> writes
I agree that Hockney doesn't come close to proving his case, although he
does pose some interesting questions. You really need to read his book,
which is beautifully produced, to get the full picture.
He doesn't seem to take into account the training these artists received
compared to a modern art school. I was also disappointed that he didn't
mention pattern books when discussing his "collage" effect in which
difference bits of pictures have differing viewpoints.
Although he thinks of his theory of how artists worked as "secret
knowledge", there are documented examples of artists using aids. I am
thinking of that frame with of grating of threads, I don't remember what
they called it. Then there is that famous picture by Durer showing a
technique for recording foreshortening of a lute. Why should mirrors and
lenses be secret when these other techniques were not?
One possibility which I don't remember if he discusses is that just
seeing the image produced by a camera obscura could change an artist's
way of seeing the world. Just knowing that is was possible to make a
highly realistic image on a flat surface might be enough to stimulate
artists to try and emulate it.
--
Simon Pugh
Remove X for email
Michael Kuettner
"Simon Pugh" <Ne...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:XPkv1KK+...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk...
> I agree that Hockney doesn't come close to proving his case, although he
> does pose some interesting questions. You really need to read his book,
> which is beautifully produced, to get the full picture.
>
Now don't get me wrong; I'll overstate my case again ;-)
Do I need to read a book from vanDaeniken to appreciate Nazca
culture ?
Hockney seems to base conjecture on hypotheses; a thing not
to uncommon in art history.
But where's the beef ?
As you state below he doesn't take into account very common day
aids of artists in those days (and ther training).
By neglecting common (well, maybe not too common) knowledge
about training and aids in those days, he manages to push a theory
which helps to sell his book instead of trying to shead some light on
Caravaggio; hence my comparison with Daeniken.
> He doesn't seem to take into account the training these artists received
> compared to a modern art school. I was also disappointed that he didn't
> mention pattern books when discussing his "collage" effect in which
> difference bits of pictures have differing viewpoints.
>
> Although he thinks of his theory of how artists worked as "secret
> knowledge", there are documented examples of artists using aids. I am
> thinking of that frame with of grating of threads, I don't remember what
> they called it. Then there is that famous picture by Durer showing a
> technique for recording foreshortening of a lute. Why should mirrors and
> lenses be secret when these other techniques were not?
>
> One possibility which I don't remember if he discusses is that just
> seeing the image produced by a camera obscura could change an artist's
> way of seeing the world. Just knowing that is was possible to make a
> highly realistic image on a flat surface might be enough to stimulate
> artists to try and emulate it.
Exactly.
Maybe C. has seen a camera obscura; or maybe his mind worked along
those ways.
But to conclude that he couldn't have painted his pictures without the
aid of a c.o. is a rather overstated hypothesis.
As I've said - How many giraffes did Dali burn for his picture ;-) ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner