Our class visited the Musee d'Orsay today. It was strange when we got there because the museum had almost as intense security procedures as an airport! We had to give our bags to a security guard to look through and walk through a metal detector. No sharp objects or large umbrellas were allowed into the museum. They were very serious about the whole ordeal! Furthermore, when we gathered the class together off to the side to give the first presentation the guards yelled as us because groups are not allowed in the museum on Sundays evidently. Our professors tried to explain that we were just going to do a few presentations, but they insisted that we separate. Then when Fiona was just trying to give us an assignment before we dispersed, another guard came up and yelled as us. They were intense there! Either way, I quite enjoyed this museum. The actual building which housed the artwork was an old railroad station- so it had an elongated hallway which led to separate smaller rooms and enclaves. Upstairs, where the offices were, were large exhibitions. The first pieces I saw were both by Manet- "Luncheon on the Grass" and "Olympia". Both pieces were quite scandalous during their time; however, I prefer "Olympia"- the piece that was rejected from the Salon during it's creation. It depicts a prostitute, sitting naked and proud, receiving flowers from her own slave. She makes eye contact with the viewer as if to show that she is not ashamed or embarrassed. I have always enjoyed the painting, there's just something about her stark pale skin against the dark backdrop that appeals to my eye. Furthermore, the whole story surrounding the painting is interesting to me- especially since it is not shocking at all in this day and age. I didn't realize that either painting was so large. "Olympia" was MUCH larger than anticipated. It also had more details than I originally thought despite technique of using blotches of colors rather than near-invisible brushstrokes. There was a distinct sense of depth- something I though Manet had gotten rid of by this point. Also, there were patterns on the left wall that I had never noticed before. The next room I wandered into was dedicated to Van Gogh and Gaugin. I was really excited to see the few pieces by Gaugin since I missed his exhibit back in London- but there were only a handful. One piece, "Paysage de Bretagne Le Moulin David", sort of reminded me some of Kandinsky's work. I wondered if maybe Kandinsky was inspired by this piece- with the bright colors and the abstract use of blocks of color. I'm not sure. There were several pieces by Van Gogh that stuck out to me. First off was "La Sieste"- which showed men sleeping amongst a field of hay. The hay and sky were so brilliantly bright. The expressive lines radiated off the canvas. The thick application of the paint with the distinct line contrasted with the more abstract and insinuated form of the man. His one "Self Portrait" was also there. I think why this piece is so famous and successful is because of how expressive it is. The pairing of complimentary colors really pop. The various shades of blues that swirl around his realistic face are wonderful. Since this piece was meant for only himself, I feel that it reveals quite a bit about him. I really enjoy the movement of the lines in all of Van Gogh's work. Rather than depicting everything as stationary, his swirly use of line and rounded forms creates movement that forces the eye to really dance around the canvas. I quite enjoyed Honroe Daumier's portrait sculptures entitled "Celebrities of the Justice Milieau". They each exaggerated facial parts of the Justice Milieau to create somewhat of carciatures of the people. I mostly enjoyed his work because I like it when artists have a sense of humor- and don't take everything too seriously. Obviously Daumier was aware of and making a statement on politics, but he created a piece that was clever and funny- not serious and depressing. One piece that really surprised me was Courbet's "Burial of Ornans". It was so large- and darker than I imagined. The muddy colors were appropriate though. I also noticed for the first time that the staff that one of the cardinals are holding that has Christ on the cross seems like it's almost floating above the mass of people- almost as if Jesus is looking down, tortured, over the whole scene. It almost doesn't look like it is attached to the staff. This piece is wonderful, and I'm not quite sure how critics had the nerve to call it the "funeral of art". I've really been enjoying seeing the pieces I've studied in class. It really gives me a new respect and perspective on them. I've also been noticing a lot of new details that I never saw. For example, in Millet's "The Gleaners" I never realized that there was a mass of other workers in the background by the haystacks- I thought it was just the three main figures in the foreground. In the back of the first floor was also a small replica of The Paris Opera House. I was shocked at how many rooms were in it since I thought all that was necessary was a few dressing rooms, the stage, and an entrance. There were also little dioramas of scenery ideas. I enjoyed seeing these because it showed how the artists tried to create a sense of realism and depth with flat surfaces. I really enjoyed the Impressionist and Post-Impressionist work. Paul Signac's "Entrece du Port de Rochelle" had a dizzying, yet beautiful effect on me. The use of blocks of color- almost a stippling effect- utilized complimentary colors to create a realistic depiction of a boat in a port. It was bright, warm, and gorgeous. It almost seemed like a mosaic of paint; it was wonderful. I stared at this for a while looking at his subtle use of different shades to build a sense of shadow and depth. This is just a small cross-section of what I saw. I only made it through the bottom floor of the museum. I ended up leaving Brittini and Danielle since they were going too fast for me. I like taking my time with each piece as opposed to feeling rushed to leave the room. There was just so much to take in. Aside from the above mentioned, I liked Renoir's "Dance a loa Ville", Seraut's "Cirque", and Dega's "Danseuses Bleus" (or any of his intimate, candid moments of the dancers, for that matter)- along with many, many others. I can't believe how much there really is to see at every museum!
Following the museum, Brittini, Danielle, and I ventured off to Champs-Elysees Clemenceau to ride on the Ferris Wheel since we were unable to go on the London Eye. We were excited to see that it was, in fact, working. Once we were at the top we could see so many of the famous monuments: the Eiffel Tower, Notre-Dame, and the Arc de Triomphe. It was fun. We also wandered into the little shops that were surrounding the ride. It's funny that Paris pretty much has the same souvenirs as London (with the obvious alteration of the words "London" to "Paris"). From here, we just walked around the area and enjoyed the architecture and the various old churches that were around the area. Then we got onto the Metro to get back for our group meeting. The Metro here is much more complicated than London's Underground. The stations are not labeled as well, and their stations are much more confusing. There are multiple platforms and trains and ways...not to mention they're all in French. Furthermore, Danielle's card stopped working- so we had to either sneak her in or give her one of our cards to use. It just added to the complications. We got on the wrong train...but figured it out pretty quickly and just got off and jumped on the opposite way. Either way, I don't like the Metro as much as the Underground. Most of the time it smells and it's not as clean as the Underground. I'm sure it's obvious by now, but I prefer London to Paris. The art is spectacular, but I don't feel the city is as welcoming or tourist-friendly as London was.
After our group meeting, which we just discussed our topics for our analytical essay (see below), Brittini, Danielle, and I decided to go back to the Eiffel Tower so we could see the city from the top at night. Being more familiar with the Metro, we got there quite easily. Unfortunately, we couldn't go to the very top because they were doing renovations until next month, but we did get to go more than half way up. The view was breathtaking. We could see the whole city- even more than the Ferris wheel. It was beautiful at night. Everything was lit up, and the tower actually has twinkling lights that go off once every hour- which we saw twice, and they were like fireworks both times. It was a great experience, and I'm glad that we came during the night. The sky was so clear, the sight was beautiful, and it was a great night. It's also quite impressive to have learned that the tower weighs 10,100 tons and requires 60 tons of paint every 7 years. I can't imagine painting the whole thing! After we spent about an hour staring down at the city, we ventured in and out of the several souvenir shops then headed back to the hotel. We were going to do a river boat cruise, but thought we'd save it for another night.
Question of the Day: Write an analytical essay about a piece that you like from the Musee d'Orsay.
One of the first pieces to catch my attention at the Musee d'Orsay was Auguste Clesinger's "Femme Pique par un Serpent" from 1847. When you first approach the piece, you assume it's just a reclining nude; however, there is much more complex compositional elements at play. The figure is thrusting herself upwards and forwards in a somewhat erotic gesture. A piece of cloth, presumably her clothing, are conveniently bearing her breasts and pelvic area, while falling against her inner thigh and her upper arm- almost drawing the eye to the genitals. Her nude body is skillfully depicted- it appears as if her flesh is tight and soft. Her head is thrown back and her hair ripples onto the bed she lays in. Each tight curl is sculpted as it wanders freely from her scalp. Her eyes are closed, but her lips are slightly pursed. Her voluptuous body is almost setup as if it's being presented before the viewer- all her assets are on display. It seems as if she's in a moment of ecstasy- or orgasmic release- her hand clenches a flower and part of her garment while one of her toes tenses and points forward. The bed she sits upon seems to be a mix of a metaphoric and literal bed- while it is rounded, it seems to be filled with plants; roses, grapes, and leaves surrounded her. It does not seem that these are meant as a pattern or decorative quality to the piece- but rather a contribution to the scene. The bed is not as cleanly finished as the female form- perhaps this is meant to drawn the attention to her, or to show that she amongst a dreamworld- something not realistic. The soft contours of her form and delicate creases in her skin contrast the jagged cracks in the creases in her skin contrast the jagged cracks in the bed. The rounded pedestal also contributes to the idea that this may be a bed. It is smoothly sculpted also, and could be the anchor for this dreaming beauty.
While this piece seems like just a beautiful example of a female nude- there seems to be darker undertones. On her right wrist there is a beaded bracelet; however, the left holds a tiny sanke. This snake creates a sinister tone. Perhaps it alludes to the Garden of Eden- and this is a representation of Eve being seduced by the devil and committing original sin. The flowers on the bed could also support this theory. Or this may be a woman committing her own sin- probably sexual in nature. Perhaps she is a mistress or a prostitute. Either way, the sexual undertones and snake all contribute to the idea and themes of sin. This may also be a reminder to men to not let prostitutes and women seduce you. In the 19th century men were seen as the victim in such scenarios.
The use of marble probably served a dual purpose. It reflects back on and references classical antiquity (though they would have been painted but 19th century artists probably wouldn't have known that). It also creates a very soft, shiny, reflective surface which attracts the eye. Marble is also very delicate so it is appropriate when creating such a soft-skinned form.
I chose this piece because it immediately caught my eye. The complex twist of the back, the delicate point of the toe, the graceful curls of the hair all impressed me. I also liked drawing the figure, so this piece was right of my alley. I'm also envious of sculptors because I don't sculpt very well. I'm just amazed at how lifelike it truly is. I also wanted to choose a piece I hadn't studied in class, and since I cannot read the label, I was able to analyze and interpret it myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment