For 2024 Pilgrims: €50,- donation = 1 year with no ads on the forum + 90% off any 2024 Guide. More here. (Discount code sent to you by Private Message after your donation) |
---|
Very good!!, the child is a few months old, you are right and a very good observer.The most unusual thing I notice is that the face of the black man has no light shining on him at all, yet his white collar and clothing are full of light, just as is everyone else in the room is.
The baby is wrapped in swaddling clothes with an additional band holding his arms down. The painting seems to be of the Nativity, celebrating the birth of Jesus, yet the child does not look like a newborn.
That was the first thing I noticed, and most mothers would! An upright and observant, but swaddled, baby.the child does not look like a newborn.
Much more than a newborn or a few months,Very good!!, the child is a few months old, you are right and a very good observer.
The background reminded me of the Virgin of the Rocks, by Da Vinci. The scene is obviously different, but the fact that they are both arches above Mary and Jesus probably made the link in my brain.When I look at a larger reproduction of the painting, I notice the night scene in the background (upper left). It reminds me of a medallion or a small painting in its own right. There is a bit of symmetry between this night scene and the rocks and plants at the bottom right but it is not very pronounced.
This painting appears to be centred on Mary rather than the baby Jesus. She is also the focus of most of the gazes in the painting. Joseph is certainly a minor actor in the scene. The viewers gaze is led from the wise mans hand upwards past Jesus to Mary's face where it rests as there is only vague and simple detail above Mary's head. Indicative of the growing importance of Mary in the Church of the time?Looking again at the smaller reproduction, I must say that the white of the collar disturbs me a bit or makes me wonder why it is there. I notice the one-two-three of Mary's light-coloured scarf, the white cloth around the upper torso of the child and and then again on Mary's lap. From a distance, the composition forms a triangle in my eyes. Does the collar distract or is it a counterpoint? Oh, what have you done, @gmag? Now I see another line, from the elbow of the man in the foreground to his head, the other man's head and the hill in the night scene ... one thing is certain, Joseph is a minor figure to this scene, which corresponds to his role in many other works of art in the Middle Ages and subsequent centuries. These representations tell the viewer in no uncertain terms that he is not the proud father of this child.
I did notice that too...Joseph's adoration is very much focussed on Mary and not the child. Mary, on the other hand, is depicted with eyes closed (or nearly so) in serene contentment.This painting appears to be centred on Mary rather than the baby Jesus. She is also the focus of most of the gazes in the painting. Joseph is certainly a minor actor in the scene. The viewers gaze is led from the wise mans hand upwards past Jesus to Mary's face where it rests as there is only vague and simple detail above Mary's head. Indicative of the growing importance of Mary in the Church of the time?
I only just now see that arched opening...plain as day.Through the arch
LOL, I think you need to explain the term "burrito-Jesus" to us. I agree with you on the cuteness of this infant. Having just clicked myself though a slide show of 88 medieval and Renaissance paintings of Adorations of the Magi and Adorations of the Shepherds, I also agree on the presence of weird looking babies in some of these paintings. One wonders whether it's intentional or whether the painter had never seen a newborn or infant under the age of 1 year in real life.That burrito-Jesus is also one of the cutest babies I've seen in classical paintings, which tend to be full of weird looking ones!
I can't ponounce it, let alone know its meaning.It just occurred to me that no one has mentioned chiaroscuro, my favourite artistic word.
I love this new word and it's definition and references. Thanks!It just occurred to me that no one has mentioned chiaroscuro, my favourite artistic word.
Having just clicked myself though a slide show of 88 medieval and Renaissance paintings of Adorations of the Magi and Adorations of the Shepherds, I also agree on the presence of weird looking babies in some of these paintings. One wonders whether it's intentional or whether the painter had never seen a newborn or infant under the age of 1 year in real life.
Very fascinating. I think "some" of those painter's were unmarried, possibly explaining a disconnect with infants, or maybe did not want cute babies to draw our eyes in and "steal the show" away from the painter's overall intent.
With all due respect and before the thread moves further away from an appreciation of Velázquez' Adoration of the Magi, the reason why many of these earlier representations of Baby Jesus look weird to us (not necessarily "ugly" as described in the video) is the fact that they look unnatural to us. The proportions of head to body is not like those of babies and infants but like the proportions of head to body of an adult human person. It's because Jesus - God born as human in Christian theology - was perceived as perfect from the very beginning, as unchangeable. This idea was no longer expressed in sacred art when Velázquez created his paintings. It's mentioned in the video but could easily be missed.Very fascinating. I think "some" of those painter's were unmarried, possibly explaining a disconnect with infants, or maybe did not want cute babies to draw our eyes in and "steal the show" away from the painter's overall intent.
The black man is not looking at the child but something else. I do not see any adoration in his face.It certainly is a scene of adoration. Joseph only has eyes for Mary and Mary’s eyes are on her Son. The three wise men are in total rapture of Jesus.
The more we jointly look, the more we see.I've looked at the painting again and think Mary's toe of her shoe is probably what is showing. I also notice that it seems her hands are quite large in proportion to her face and body.
The patterns of light and shadow on the faces are consistent with a light source on the left but in a plane that lies outside the canvas, ie between the canvas and the observer.there is shadow and light on every one of the seven faces
Eso fue lo primero que noté, ¡y la mayoría de las madres lo notarían! Un bebé erguido y observador, pero envuelto en pañales.
NoThe patterns of light and shadow on the faces are consistent with a light source on the left but in a plane that lies outside the canvas, ie between the canvas and the observer.
I downloaded an image with an even higher resolution than the one in the first post. The plants at the bottom right could be Saint John’s wort and perhaps also ivy, the hill in the top left corner could be a reference to a hill near Jerusalem, perhaps not early morning or late evening but a sky that turned dark at noon and stayed that way until three in the afternoon ... so, yes, maybe, maybe, pointing to things to come as someone said earlier - baptism, crucifixion, eternal life. There is also a silhouette that looks like a walker with a broad rimmed hat, someone mentioned spotting head and shoulders earlier. All these are tiny details. The white collar must be 16th/17th century Spanish fashion.
So, Teacher, has anyone touched on what you want us to see?
This is thrilling. Looking forward hearing about it
Well, that’s a clear answer
That was my thought as well but didnt explain it too well. I am imagining this painting as far bigger with the mountain as the focal point...central to the piece (which it isn't)What has just popped into my head is, zero - point perspective, with the mountain in the background. Only a guess.
Ok Gabriel...just a clue please.To all of you:
You are still far from the point, and I can tell you that it is information that is worth gold, it is really valuable to understand a painting. It is something that applies even today, and it is a very old discovery.
I look at your posts very frequently, and if I don't answer anything, it's because I don't want to fill the post with my comment boxes, it would be unsightly and even an intrusion into a beautiful world of comments and interesting ideas and full of friendship between the participants.
In the meantime, I will say some curious things about the painting.
The model for the Virgin Mary is Juana Pacheco, Velazquez's wife.
Velazquez was 19 or 20 years old when he painted the picture, (!!!!!!!) he was born on June 6, 1599. It is a beautiful day to be born, on the 6th of 6. I was also born that same day, but a few years later.
The wizard king at the bottom left, is Velazquez himself, it is his self-portrait.
Juana Pacheco was the daughter of his teacher, they married in 1617, when she was 15 years old. Therefore, in the painting, Maria is about 17 years old. It is true that her hands in the painting do not correspond to her face. And less with a 16 or 17 year old girl. Knowing that Velazquez corrected his pictures, and this is visible in the x-rays that are made during restorations, and I have them, if he painted and left his hands like that, it is because he wanted to do it. Perhaps to give a feeling of strength, stability, security.
Velazquez began studying painting with professional teachers when he was 10 (!!) years old. With Pacheco he was from 11 to 17, he finished his studies and received his license to paint.
In Velazquez's time, and I suppose that today among the majority of Catholics in Spain, it is assumed that the night Jesus was born was when he received the adoration of the Magi, Melchior, Gaspar and Baltasar and of the shepherds. Therefore, a single act is represented in a single moment, without further complications. And as I write this, it occurs to me that humanity is symbolized or represented by it: shepherds represent a poor part of society, kings represent another rich and cultured part, and shepherds, at the same time, represent those who later They will take care of the flock of God, us, with their priests or shepherds. This is nothing more than my elucubration of this moment.
Well, I do not want to lengthen the topic and the emotion more than necessary for you, for me it is very good if it lasts longer, the longer the mystery lasts, the more things will be sought and the longer we will all be entertained, me too, because I learn things from you and because I discover things that I did not think before. But since you are the important people, when you agree that I say it, I will. Although it is very possible that at any moment someone, with a slightly detective approach, will find or remember that...
Gabriel
NoOk Gabriel...just a clue please.
Is the colouration in the piece a clue that we seek?
Or it's all in the eyes.From what Gabriel has said in his lengthy post, I am now thinking the answer he is looking for must be a technique of painting, either general or unique to V, and has nothing to do with the Nativity scene itself...possibly this is a clue.?
From what Gabriel has said in his lengthy post, I am now thinking the answer he is looking for must be a technique of painting, either general or unique to V, and has nothing to do with the Nativity scene itself...possibly this is a clue.?
Hm ... gold ...? I don't think I would be able to see it ... If that's what it is, then I know about it but I can't see it.gold
Wow. I didn't see that rectangle ...I forgot to say that the painting is 204 cm. x 126,5 cm.
Unrelated to what you are looking for, Gabriel, but the baby looks happily engrossed in the man kneeling before him, and the man's face seems to be rather animated as if possibly "talking" baby talk, engaging the child.
could the baby be one of their daughters?
Not far!!!So is it about ratios of some sort? I can't paint and I don't have a painter's eye but I have a graphics app that lets me cut pieces out of a painting and these all have the same line ratio and they are major parts of the composition of the painting:
View attachment 94548
This is so tantalising ... the app even lets me experiment with the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci Variants, and I would do so if I had any idea of what I was doing.Not far!!! You´re mooving around for a while...
This is so tantalising ... the app even lets me experiment with the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci Variants, and I would do so if I had any idea of what I was doing.
Well, you have achieved something. It's no secret that I am mainly interested in the traces of the iconography and the history and the story that a medieval or Renaissance/Baroque painting narrates. I wasn't particularly interested in the Vermeer, ok, an astronomer and some old instruments and clever use of light. I got more interested with the discussion around Las Lanzas and the lines that you showed us there. And now I'm starting to be quite intrigued by it all and to "see" things I didn't see before ...
Very good Gabriel,Hello everyone, I hope and wish you all are well, and your families and friends ...
Well let's go!
I have chosen this painting, also by Velazquez, because it has something that I want to show.
It is only one thing, which we have not talked about in the previous paintings, and it is something very important, and that not all art lovers know, and know how to apply even if they have heard about it.
I want to put more cheerful pictures, they will come, I hope.
Now, I leave you to say anything you think about the painting, it does not have to be the one that has motivated me to put it, there are interesting things to say, of course ... and you and your comments make the post interesting.
Thank you!!
I meant to say that the art appreciation threads and @gmag's enthusiasm and excellent explanations as well as other contributions to the threads achieved something: they got me interested in something I had not been interested much before. And look what I can do with my graphics app - is it meaningful? This I cannot tell ... but I do like the painting.
View attachment 94559
Gabriel, your words sound like "Greek to me"...I will now stay in the background and watch the grand finale unfold by others more adept than me.I'm going to give you all a hint, I use the 1.618 ratio, and knowing that, I use the 0.618 figure in a way. It may be that I use it 1, 2, 3 or 4 times ... or 2 and 2 ... (I cannot say this, it would be saying everything) with the result I make certain drawings and I have what I am looking for, a "golden" solution. And, as I said in my previous answer, no special knowledge is necessary, just try with the little we know ...
Until today, I didn't even know that the app had this feature. I use the app mainly to reduce the (pixel) size of photos before I email them to someone or upload them to the forum. It was fun playing around with it. I've seen these spirals on paintings before and, as I said, in art they don't mean much to me. In mathematics, however ... but that's a different topic altogether.I think that App is complicating you a lot. There is an easier and more logical way.
I was counting on you and other similarly knowledgeable people to bring this to a conclusion. You brought chiaroscuro and framing into the discussion, all of it new to me. And you had worked out a meaningful decimal fraction while I was still trying to locate a calculator app.So with 0.618 we are looking at the Golden Spiral made of identical Golden rectangles and being very close to Fibonacci Spirals as they converge? I think that I getting to beyond my pay grade! I am a simple photographer, rather than an artist or mathematician.
Hi and thank you for your good work. I think that if I had approached it as a photographer,, I would have thought of it sooner.Let's go there ...
In Ancient Rome, Vitruvius, a famous archirect, established the Law of the Golden Section, which says:
For a space divided into unequal parts to be pleasant and aesthetic, there must be the same relationship between the smallest and largest parts as between the largest and the whole.
The arithmetic expression for the gold section equals 1.618.
To find this ideal division, you just have to multiply the width of the painting by 0.618 and you get the division of the golden section.
If this operation is repeated for the height of the painting, the ideal point is obtained to place the main element of the painting.
The head of Jesus is at a point in the golden section.
There are four points where the two vertical and horizontal lines intersect, the painter chooses one of them, up or down, to the left or to the right.
This technique has been used in painting for centuries, it was very common in the Baroque, but it is used today, when you want to find the main point of the painting, or one of them, rather.
It can therefore be found in any painting from any period.
In this case, Velazquez wanted to put emphasis on Jesus and not on Maria, and put him in the main point.
Sometimes it is not necessary to make exact measurements, simply with the eyes you can make an approximation.
Yes, this was discussed with the Vermeer.I seem to recall a post in this thread that mentioned a foreshadowing. I had a saved a screenshot some time ago that dealt with this (not that it has any other bearing on the topic.)
View attachment 94643
Wow, a cross with the crucified Jesus hanging on the wall above the newborn baby Jesus. That must be unusual. I also noticed the person on the left who is dressed like a pilgrim with hat, staff and scrip, also quite anachronistic and a pointer to things to come. I wonder whether the town in the background is Cologne.I seem to recall a post in this thread that mentioned a foreshadowing. I had a saved a screenshot some time ago that dealt with this View attachment 94643
This van der Weyden painting was an altarpiece for a church in Cologne. Cologne was at one time the fourth most important destination for Christian pilgrimage in the Middle Ages, after Jerusalem, Rome and Santiago. And the main attraction of Cologne? The precious relics of the Three Kings that are venerated in their huge Gothic cathedral.Cologne
@Chenahusky would have or knew already but I would never have found it. I thought of the Golden Ratio as soon as you said in #43 that you can tell us that it is information that "is worth gold". I knew what the reference meant but as I then replied: "If that's what it is, then I know about it but I can't see it."Kathar1na and you were about to find it at any moment
Of course Kathar1na, after giving the solution I went on the internet to see what was said about the golden point and I saw that they only talk about the golden section, which is not the same. I tried to insist on searching with intuition and with a simple mathematical operation and not only with logic or technics (that's why I told something about us), but that possibility was not on the internet ... If I had known, I would have said something like that important is a "point" or something about points... In any case, both of you were very brilliant, and I really found that the solution both of you gave correct enaugh. I already said that it is something that few art lovers and artists know about its existence or how to apply it.@Chenahusky would have or knew already but I would never have found it. I thought of the Golden Ratio as soon as you said in #43 that you can tell us that it is information that "is worth gold". I knew what the reference meant but as I then replied: "If that's what it is, then I know about it but I can't see it."
At the time, I had already used my app, and it had put a Golden Ratio grid of 9 rectangles on the Velaquez painting but I didn't know that it was the points of intersections of the lines that were important for the composition and not the areas of the rectangles and what I could see inside them. That is what I have now learnt. So thank you. And I have of course already put a grid on the van der Weyden painting. Yep, it could fit, the child's head is quite close to one of the four points.
David, Velazquez was an exceptional portraitist since he was a child, this is written in the memoirs of Francisco Pacheco, his teacher. The portrait was what he was always most interested in. The contrast between light and shadow is also part of his art sense, even from the beginning.I notice that only the seven main figures seem to be truly lit and have colour. The foreground (bottom right) and background (top left) are muted and tend toward the monochrome.
Very interesting, thanks!!I seem to recall a post in this thread that mentioned a foreshadowing. I had a saved a screenshot some time ago that dealt with this (not that it has any other bearing on the topic.)
View attachment 94643
One important aspect is the synergy that is created by the contributions of every participant in the thread. The most casual remark can lead us into an interesting direction. I enjoy this.the solution
This painting is in Madrid! It is a copy of an original that is in the Old Pinakothek in Munich. The truth is that San José is a strange one, it could be what you say, why not.I know that the thread ought to come to a close but I just have to share this.
I like to download images of paintings from the Webgallery site because the colours are more true and the resolution is higher. I noticed that their description of the painting that @Rick of Rick and Peg posted identifies the person on the left in the red coat as Joseph and so do other websites, apparently. For me, there is no doubt that it is a medieval pilgrim and not Joseph. Not only hat, staff and scrip show this but also the long road behind him, leading to the town and out of it and up and through the hills. But look at his shoes! Leather on wood with straps. There is a copy of this painting, attributed to Memling, where the details of the shoes are better to see. One can also see that he has just arrived, look at the left foot.
And sorry for the side track but we on the forum are after all always interested in pilgrim gear.
View attachment 94664
Read MathewAnd this is what I googled: When did the 3 men arrive? The answer is: It is not known. Various calculation have been made. Anything between the time of birth and the move to Egypt is possible, with the age of Jesus ranging from 0-2 years. 8-10 months became popular.
if Velazquez were commissioned to paint the story today, how would he solve it? And who would he chose as his models?
You say:Read Mathew
The gospel of Matthew tells us that later some magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem asking where would the king of the Jews be born? (Matthew 2:1-3) The Roman governor, Herod the Great, asked the Jewish chief priests and scribes where He would be born. After the Jewish chief priests and scribes searched the Scriptures they told Herod and the magi the Christ would be born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:4-8).
Consequently, the magi followed the light in the sky. It led them to the city of Bethlehem and to the place where Jesus was living with His parents.
Verse 11 states that Jesus was living in a house. This reveals that Jesus’ parents had moved to a house. Contrary to popular nativity scenes and paintings, Christ was now living in a house when the magi visited Him. His parents had moved from the location of the manger to this house. There were no shepherds or angels when the magi stopped to worship Him and give Him gifts.
Verses 13-14 state that the magi left and Joseph was warned in a dream to take his family to Egypt. It is difficult to know how much time had elapsed between the magi’s arrival in Jerusalem and their visit to the house. But it is highly unlikely that the events happened quickly.
Matthew 2:16 tells us that when Herod realized that the magi had not returned to tell him the exact location of where the Christ was living, he ordered every child two years old and younger to be murdered.
Verse 16 and verse 2 tell us that Herod the Great had determined that the magi had seen the star two years earlier. Consequently, Herod murdered all children from two years of age and under. This would reveal that Jesus was about two years of age when the magi visited Him.
That said and back to the subject of painting and the painter... I don't knw about y'all but I will never "look" at Velasquez again with the same eyes after watching El ministerio del tiempo
Read Mathew
I understand the context for the discussion, and the intent to explain the logic of the painting. However, I think we'd better be careful with any further debate about the wording of the Bible, as it could stray into discussion of religion (Rule 7).You say:
To a large extent I agree with you, I have not wanted to make a problem either, I simply give an opinion that may be to agree or not, and reason it. In fact, where I do see the possibility of the two years of Jesus is, as I said, in the Gospel of Saint Luke.Agree with above posts made by @C clearly and @Kathar1na
The only reason I mentioned the passage from The Bible was to point out that it can be reasonably come to the age in question by looking at the passages.
That said - in the context of the painting - yeah.... God only knows how many paintings, frescoes, mosaics I have seen (esp while doing Mediterranean Cruise in Nov 19 and hitting every church, basilica, cathedral etc I could...) where John The Baptist looks like he could be Mary's Grandfather
You do not have to regret anything, everything you did was correct, absolutely correct, it was a logical appreciation.I half regret now that I tried to provide a very short explanation when posters expressed surprise about the age of the child in the Velazquez painting. I am aware that there is interest if not obsession with historical accuracy and literal texts in the Bible. But that is irrelevant in this context. As @gmag says, an artist such as Velazquez and many others expresses the thinking, the feeling, the traditions, the culture of his time and of the environment surrounding him and the many forms of impact and influence that he receives and transmits and helps to shape through his creative work.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?