"Fantastic Art Show 2010"

"Fantastic Art Show 2010"
シェア
2010年4月21日10:29
「幻想芸術展　２０１０」
International Fantastic Art Association　
http://ifaa.cc
info@ifaa.cc　　

会期５月1日（土）～５月9日（日）
開廊　11:00～20:00（最終日18:00迄）
※初日18:00よりレセプションパーティー

会場　Galleryやさしい予感
最寄駅　JR目黒駅
〒141-0021　東京都品川区上大崎2-9-25
TEL 03-5913-7635
http://www.yokan.info.
yasashii@yokan.info

===================================================
" Fantastic art show 2010"

May 1 (Sat) - May 9, (Sun).,
open 11: 00-20: 00 (last day, May 9 ~18: 00 )

* May, 1 .18: 00~ reception party

"Gallery Yasashii - Yokan"
nearest station JR Meguro
141-0021, 2-9-25 kamiosaki shinagawa-ku Tokyo ,Japan


===================================================
I am very honored to be included in this show!

Kite = tobi (Japanese) = milan/milano = nibbio

Leonardo had the memory of a kite (nibbio) flying down to his crib and striking the inside of his mouth/lips with its tail. It is interesting that Leonardo had connected this incident to his "destiny." ...but why? (By the way, Freud had mis-interpreted the word, "nibbio." He thought that it was a vulture, but in reality, it is a kite.)

A kite is a cautious bird. A kite is similar to a hawk, a bird of prey; therefore, for it to come close to Leonardo as an infant and not harming him is surprising.

An Egyptian goddess, Isis, sometimes transformed to a kite.

A kite, as well as a 'good' artist, has the wonderful eyesight.

Kites mate for life, and they help each other for brooding. The male brings the animal/food, and the female tears it apart and feed the chicks.
(This is the opposite of what Leonardo may have experienced in his early household.)

Mother kite uses the sound to warn the young ones when they are in danger (...to appear dead).
(Leonardo was a good singer - a sound maker.)

Most often they eat the already dead meat and remove the dead carcasses.
(Leonardo dissected the dead body.)

Red kite seems to have "the reputation to 'steal' the garments left out to dry." Shakespeare mentions it in his "Winter's Tale."
(Salai, whom Leonardo had adopted as his son, had the stealing habit!)

They glide in the air most of the time and not flapping their wings too often. Their legs are weak.
(The airplanes appear to glide when they are flying, and the man made kites are named after this bird. It is needless to mention about the "obsession" of Leonardo in regards to flying. )

(citation about the kite: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/トビ
           http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-bird-called-a-kite.htm
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Kite
           http://www.arkive.org/red-kite/milvus-milvus/biology.html
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Kite
           http://hato.de-blog.jp/hatokaku/cat6658626/index.html
           http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/view.php?tid=3&did=23384 )

Was Leonardo also trying to relate this incident with the fact that he later had lived and worked in Milan?
The pun on the name of kite in French (Milan)and Spanish (Milano) with the name of the city state, where Leonardo lived and worked, Milan (Milano), although the etymology of the name of the city has almost nothing to do with a kite, may indicate such connection.

Obviously Leonardo did not come to the realization back then, when the incident had taken place originally. Leonardo is reflecting and interpreting the incident much later in his life after reflecting about his life. We don't exactly know when this realization had occurred although it was eventually written down.

One thing which stand out in this memory is that Leonardo remembered/recorded what he had observed and not what/how he had felt. In other words, the infant Leonardo seems to have rather objectively observed and remembered the external event as the scientist would while this kite flew down and hit the inside of Leonardo's mouth/lips with its tale. On the other hand, Leonardo seems not to have observed nor recorded the internal feeling and emotion of his as the psychologist. We do not know the true reason for this. (...whether the incident was not the fearful experience, or he was choosing not to disclose the feeling.)
It is also interesting to note that Leonardo decided to record and write about this incident, yet none about his early relation to his mother was written (...or being discovered by the historians).

This kite may symbolize the messenger or a being who anoints, for it did not harm/attack Leonardo but struck the inside of the mouth as if to pass on something and/or to appoint.

Mayer Schapiro in his essay, "Leonardo and Freud: An Art-Historical Study," (one of the essays compiled in the "Renaissance Essays," edited by Paul Oskar Kristeller and Philip P. Wiener / published in 1968 by University of Rochester Press) points to the significance of the legends of some of the great personalities in the human history having the common theme of some type of small creature(s), whether a bird or the ants, entering and/or touching the mouth/lips of such personalities (...often, when they were very young). "In all these classical legends, the omen is located in the mouth, the place of speech and more particularly of the breath or spirit." (p 311) It is interesting to note that one of the personalities he mentions is Saint Ambrose who is the patron saint of the city of Milan.

Search for the missing Mural, "The Battle of Anghiari"

"The Battle of Anghiari"



Is the mural of "The Battle of Anghiari" really lost?


Was it partially ruined or totally ruined?


It has been said that the lower part of the mural was saved but not the upper part; however, it sounds too general and vague.


Leonardo seems to have increased the heat to dry and fix the running paints (from the upper portion of the wall) onto the wall surface. As I have mentioned in the earlier posting, during the "burning in" process of the encaustic painting method, the heat cannot be too high, for it melts the various parts of the painting and the paints would merge with each other, making the mess.


If it weren't for the sketches left by Rubens and the few others, we would have no idea what the mural may have looked like. Fortunately, what seems to be the central portion of the mural as been recorded by the above mentioned painters; however, there are some questions remain to be answered. Did Rubens, for instance, copy the portion of the mural accurately? If so, was that particular portion of the mural intact back then? ...or did Rubens and the others created their own version of it based on what was visible? We know from the record that a part - possibly the central portion - of the mural was visible and kept intact for sometime, and that is the reason why Rubens was able to copy it.


We do not exactly know what part of the mural was ruined/damaged. Where did Leonardo begin painting with the color? Did Leonardo, at least, succeed in painting that central portion? ..or did he not commenced with painting that area yet at the time of the disaster? ...or was it also ruined, but the images were recognizable?


Why did Leonardo not sketch and copy the mural for the record (even if it is ruined...)?


The late Prof. Carlo Pedretti (Leonardo expert) of UCLA, Prof. John F. Asmus of UCSD, and Prof. Maurizio Seracini believe in the existence of the fresco behind the current mural, "Battle of Marciano in Val di Chiana," painted by Vasari. Prof. Seracini is about to commence in the active search of this missing mural by Leonardo. I am very supportive of this project, for I also believe that it is very like that Vasari has preserved at least the famous central part of the mural. Prof. Seracini has discovered the gap between the current wall and the wall behind it. This wall behind should be examined. I wish him and his research team the best of luck!






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Anghiari_(painting)

Creativity

Creativity


We are used to associating the creative expression with art. Of course, all the great artworks are the fruit of the creative endeavor;however, we must keep in mind that the creativity and the creative process are not exclusive to the activities exercised by the artists. In fact, in many areas beyond the realm of the arts, the creativity is used.


I remember reading an unique art history book when I was in the middle school, where the author had praised the ancient man who had created (invented) the 'first' bowl, for it required the tremendous creativity.
I was enlightened.


Let us imagine the two primitive men. One is holding a burning stick (branch) to ward off the beast, and the other is using the primitive bowl he had made. In both cases, the creativity is used, and in both cases, they have had the realization of some sort. The former has realized that the beasts are afraid of the fire, so he can use the burning stick to scare the beasts although he did not ignite the fire nor made the stick. The latter also had the realization, but it is more complex, for he not only has figured out that the concave object in the shape similar to the hand(s) can scoop the water and retain and even transport the objects, he also has made/invented the bowl through the discovery of the raw materials that can be mixed and used. After awhile, he may discover that the uncured (non-fired) earth/clay would melt, so that he need to fire the earthen ware. This also is the major jump, for he has to associate the firing process (heat) with the permanence of the object (bowl). 


We can see in the above examples that the creativity is playing the major role (whether it was through the accidental discovery or the careful, playful, and thoughtful planning and the execution). 


Also, in both cases, the keen observation of the surrounding environment is crucial. The observation of the environment enables us to collect and store the visual data, and we can sort them out into the ones with the cyclical/rhythmical pattern and the unusual ones.


Although we cannot compare the artworks of Leonardo da Vinci to Michelangelo and determine which artist has used more creativity or not, but we also cannot compare these great artists to the primitive men who have exercised their creativity. While the master artists had the examples of their predecessor as the precedent, the primitive men had either little or no examples to follow (or to be inspired).

Leonardo's "lost" mural, " The Battle of Anghiari" part 1

"The Battle of Anghiari" could have been the largest and the most spectacular mural of Leonrdo da Vinci, had his experiment with the paining method was successful. It is generally accepted as the "lost" masterpiece.

Had Leonardo used the method written by Pliny to do with the technique involving the wax / encaustic and the heat, there maybe the smoke damage on the ceiling directly above the wall where Leonardo had attempted to paint.

Did Leonardo attempt to do the final "Burning-in" for the mural?

This process is crucial, for the reheating of the entire surface enables each layer to bind together, thus preventing the cracking or chipping. However, the temperature should not be too hot or too cold!
Leonardo may have thought that the enormous amount of heat may be required to do the "Burning-in" the paints to such enormous wall. I do not know whether Leonardo had used such method shown in the biographical portrayal of Leonardo in 1972 by the RAI production, but if that much heat was needed, he must have used and burnt a lot of woods causing the large amount of smoke. Of course, had it burnt well with the high heat, there could have been the less smoke. But since the record shows hat the paints began to run down the wall, the temperature may have been too hot, and it is possible that the smoke might have been permeating the room. It will be good to study the current ceiling forensically. If the interior, especially the ceiling, has not been restored since the time of Leonardo, the evidence of the smoke damage may still be there, and that may indicate to the area where the paints were applied. Since he used the heat to fix the already painted area, the location maybe determined below the smoke damage... or so.

Was the plaster surface moist and not completely dry? If so, that may have cause the wax to remain on the surface and not to get soaked into the wall. The soaking-in to the dry plaster could have helped preventing the paints to not run down the surface easily.

The reason behind Pliny's warning against the use of this technique on the wall may have been that the wall is vertical, and the things of weight, such as paints in the large quantity can run down easily and quickly, and there is not enough time to fix it to the vertical surface. Even if Leonardo had experimented and succeeded with the smaller scaled model, to determine the correct amount of the temperature required to "Burning-in" the paints on the much larger surface may not have been easy.

Likely that the temperature was too hot for the surface and the layers literally merged with each other making the color muddy. Unlike the smaller scaled murals, shire weight of the liquefied paint from the large vertical surface may have caused it to run down rapidly, thus destroying the painting.

Also, had he mixed any other elements to this vehicle made of wax, that may not only increased the weight of the paints but to have interfered with the chemical process for the drying.

FYI:      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Anghiari_(painting)

The importance of drawing/painting from life

The importance of drawing/painting from life

As an art teacher, I have often encountered some students wanting to impress me by showing me the drawings and/or the paintings done from copying the photo images or the images from the magazines.  These are usually done very beautifully, and I have no problem with the practice.  In fact, there is a long tradition of copying of the master pieces (paintings) done by the students/apprentices to further their artistic skills. However, there is a big difference between copying the photo images and copying the paintings/drawings.  The copying of the master pieces is done, so that the students can not only copy the forms and the colors but to also learn how the masters may have created the artworks. In other words, the copying of the master pieces enable the students to learn about the technique used by the masters.

Nevertheless, one of the best excercises to train the students is to let them paint and/or draw from life (i.e.,  still life,  portrait,  figure,  landscape )
Why?  It is much easier for the eyes to copy the images already done in the 2D forms to the 2D pantings/drawings.  On the other hand, it is quite challenging for the eyes that are used to observing the environment n the 3D reality to "translate/transpose" it to the 2D form on the rather flat surfaces.  That is the reason why the art schools usually prefer to view the portfolios made up of the works done from life.  Thus, I have encouraged my high school students in the Portfolio (Building) Class to have as many portfolio samples done from life to show, even if those are the simple sketches.

Of course, not only the skill developments but the enhancing of the imagination is very important.  You may already know about the famous quote from Albert Einstein: "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

The artist would become formidable when the imagination and the skills go hand in hand.  What is the use when the aspiring artist has the great imagination but cannot express/manifest/articulate it well?

I am very glad to have received the training to work from life.  The drawing above was done from life, by observing my own left hand, when I was in the 4th grade.

Saint Jerome painting by Leonardo

"St. Jerome"

The lion in the foreground seems to be too small compared to the saint.
According to the Wikipedia, the head and body length  of the lion (male) is between 170–250 cm (5 ft 7 in – 8 ft 2 in), so it is at least as tall (large) as an average sized human male. (sited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion )

An object in the foreground should appear larger than the object in the middle ground even if they are the same size in reality. As I have mentioned above, a lion can be larger than a human to begin with, so in order to place the lion in front of the saint, the lion has to be much larger than what Leonardo has portrayed. But to do so, it may have compromised the composition... i.e., the size of the saint in relation to the lion and the painted surface. In other words, the lion in the foreground would dominate the composition.

Had the painting being done during the Middle Ages, it would have been acceptable, for the painters then had used the non-natural, "hieratic scale." [i.e., painting the saints(an important figure) larger than what they usually appear in life - the actual size] (sited:  http://www.renaissanceconnection.org/lesson_social_humanism.html)

Thus, I feel that Leonardo was struggling within to find the proper expression and the use of the scale and the perspective. Could this be one of the possible reasons why Leonardo had left this painting unfinished?