Jones Gallery curator Sarah Jones looks at the life and work of Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610) during his time in Rome, with particular attention to his major religious paintings.
Interesting presentation, from which I learned. Re Caravaggio's 'lowering Christ into the tomb' and Michelangelo's 'Pieta', a sculpture around which one could walk (absent 'security'!) and so see the figures from all of the possible 360 degrees. Yes, Caravaggio has us at about 45 degrees from 'full frontal' view; both technically challenging and dramatically effective. Caravaggio has given us one of the 360 possible views! Michelangelo, all of them.
Caravaggio fascinates and enraptures us with his combination of sacred and profane, flesh and spirit, apotheosis and degradation, ecstasy and agony, light and shadow. An impulsive, sanguine, feverish painter
Caravaggio and his dramatic and violent realism, one of my favorite western painters, the others are Hieronymus Bosch and his proto-surrealism that anticipated Salvador Dalí by centuries, El Greco and the ecstasy, the devotional rapture of his figures, Jackson Pollock and his fluidity in the composition that is at the same time paradoxically chaotic, his abstract expressionism, and Nicholas Roerich with his remote and ethereal landscapes of the Himalayas.
Caravaggio is truly the greatest painter of all time. His art is so gangsta. So street. So real. So perfect. The only other painter who comes close to Caravaggio’s dramatic psychological drama is Van Gogh. To put it in terms of Rock’n’Roll (so Frank can understand), Caravaggio is Elvis and Van Gogh is Daniel Johnston. 😉🤘😜
He is certainly the greatest painter of christian art, the second is El Greco in my opinion. People talk about Rembrandt but i find him boring, too bourgeois, northern european protestant sensibility, aesthetics. Caravaggio move and excite you like few others
It's interesting that you mention the psychological drama expressed in Van Gogh's work, it seems more abstract to me as Van Gogh is best known for his still lifes and landscapes. I think he also communicates a lot of this in his grave, stern self-portraits. It is different from the expressive agony of the Christian hagiographic legacy painted by Caravaggio, the violence, the tangible and physical suffering of the martyrs. Van Gogh's emotional drama is more subtle, subjective, something that ferments internally and that transpires externally in an insidious way but without the blood and torment of Caravaggio.
@@latitudeselongitudes1932 Agreed. And very well put. I don’t have the vocabulary or precise understanding of Art History to pinpoint what I meant by comparing Caravaggio and Van Gogh. Your words have given definition to what I was trying to express. When I look at their works of art it seems possible to “sense” the similarities in what they are expressing. The word “terror” keeps coming into my mind. To experience life…to really feel deeply…to experience the human hypersensitivity it must take to create works of art as powerful as Caravaggio or Van Gogh…is to come face to face with terror. A kind of terror that is beyond human. A “Godlike” terror expressed using all of creation as its weapon. A horrific historical terror weapon pointed directly at the Human individual’s very soul. The audacity of these Artists to confront the Wrath of God head on unflinchingly in order to bring back the incredible, ineffable masterpieces such as those they have created. It’s unreal. They suffered for it. It seems they have suffered for us.
@@chuck6033 Yes, Van Gogh is the definition of the tortured artist. Very unhappy life. Caravaggio is the perfect example of the dissolute bohemian artist with a violent mood. He murdered a man! Both genius, i connect more with Caravaggio art but connect more with Van Gogh personality, i also suffer with mental illness so i understand him a little
@@chuck6033 My favorite paintings of Caravaggio are Saint Jerome Writing, Saint Francis in Meditation, The Flagellation of Christ, The Crucifixion of Saint Peter, The Incredulity of Saint Thomas, The Entombment of Christ, The Taking of Christ, Judith and Holofernes, The Ecstasy of Saint Francis, Cupid Victorious, David with the Head of Goliath, Medusa and Bacchus. Caravaggio's influence goes beyond painting, also in cinema, theater, scenography
21:07 Exactly. For this, and So Much More, thank you, Lady. ;) 28:12 Can you really believe a 'current source' if the source is a rival of the subject they discuss? Thank you for pointing this out, as well! It would stand to reason that we should take the quotation at 32:44 from 'one of the two contemporary (rivals!) biographers with a silo of salt? It may qualify as juicy gossip...but is it true? 1:04:55 What do you make of the unnatural fold in St. Jerome's cloak? Almost as if it conceals a pointed, rounded object. The fold runs parallel to the massive open book above it, emphasizing it...and the odd fold beneath , which is in the shape of an open (frowning?) eye...
2:09 Did she really say: "Michael-Angelo"? Is the lead singer of The Rolling Stones "Mike Jagger"? Come on already! All credibility lost with me, and I was so looking forward to the rest of the lecture.
I did indeed! Thank you for that insightful observation! I have heard art historians use either the short or long 'i'! Imagine that! Personally, I think using a short 'i' as an English speaker makes one sound like a bit of an arrogant twodface. Sometimes I do opt for a more commonly heard pronunciation because the actual content tends to be more significant, and uh, I really don't want to sound like a twodface. But thanks again, Frank.
@@JonesGallery Proper names don't fall under the discretionary purview of one's native tongue. We're not talking about long vs short "a" in tomato, which is clearly cultural and regional. People; famous or not, alive or dead should have their names pronounced correctly. Mike-elangelo is simply incorrect. Whether there's a precedent in the art history community or not. Do you feel like a twodface when you say Mick Jagger? Respectfully disagree with your entire justification. It's Mich-elangelo plain and simple.
Discretionary purview is the spice of life, Frank! And precedent within a group of experts kind of does matter, because, you know what, art historians don't care about this kind of inanity. I disagree with your disagreeableness.
