This girl be goin places.
Morgs you're rad.
Showing posts with label art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label art. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
Wednesday, July 03, 2013
Hey Friends,
I'm blessed to contribute each Wednesday to a wonderful art collective. It tends to be a bit more practiced and refined than my typical Hope is an Anchor ramblings and it has already been a great growing experience. It is quite a lot of fun and there is so much going on each day from all the contributors - today's article is about The Gold Under Our Feet. And I'm especially partial to it, since of course I'm giving a little thought to one of my favorite children's stories, The Wizard of Oz.
Take a look, and perhaps add it to your "Favorites" bar. ;)
I'm blessed to contribute each Wednesday to a wonderful art collective. It tends to be a bit more practiced and refined than my typical Hope is an Anchor ramblings and it has already been a great growing experience. It is quite a lot of fun and there is so much going on each day from all the contributors - today's article is about The Gold Under Our Feet. And I'm especially partial to it, since of course I'm giving a little thought to one of my favorite children's stories, The Wizard of Oz.
Take a look, and perhaps add it to your "Favorites" bar. ;)
Thursday, May 09, 2013
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Friday, September 28, 2012
I'm singing Nat King Cole and picturing Audrey Hepburn. Mona Lisa and masterpiece controversies of authenticity?! I think it's time to re-watch my favorite Hepburn movie. :) That aside, this article had me transfixed.
September 28, 2012
Mona Lisa mystery deepens as another version is unveiled
By JAMEY KEATEN
Associated Press
The Mona Lisa Foundation claims there have always been two portraits of the iconic painting by Leonardo da Vinci, the ‘Earlier Version,’ made 10 years before the ‘Joconde’ that is displayed in Le Louvre in Paris. GENEVA — The mystery behind the most enigmatic smile in art — Leonardo da Vinci's “Mona Lisa” — just got a little more complicated.
In a coming-out party of sorts in Geneva, rounds of flashbulbs popped Thursday as the nonprofit Mona Lisa Foundation pulled back the curtain to present what it claims is a predecessor of the world's most famous portrait.
But even the experts brought in by the foundation weren't sure about that claim just yet.
The art world is prone to all sorts of rumors and speculation — and, periodically — discoveries that jolt accepted norms. Two years ago, a retired French electrician claimed that he had turned up 271 Picasso works that had been sitting for decades in his garage — and Picasso's heirs claimed theft.
But a new claim about the world's most famous painting, which draws millions of visitors to Paris' Louvre Museum each year, resonates like a thunderclap in the art world. It also prompts a new look at a painting that all by itself still raises a lot of questions for experts — not least the timeless “Is she smiling or not?”
The “Isleworth Mona Lisa” features a dark-haired young woman with her arms crossed against a distant backdrop. The foundation insists it's no copy but an earlier version of the Louvre masterpiece.
At the presentation, Alessandro Vezzosi, director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo da Vinci, said the painting was intriguing but needs further study. He declined to line up behind the foundation's claims that it was truly a “Mona Lisa” predecessor painted by da Vinci.
Ever since the 16th century, several historical sources suggest that da Vinci painted two “Mona Lisa” versions. One was of Mona Lisa Gherardo around 1503 that was commissioned by her husband, Francesco del Giocondo, the foundation said. Another — the one in the Louvre — was completed in 1517 for Giuliano de Medici, da Vinci's patron. That theory fits with da Vinci's tendency at times to paint two versions of some of his works, like the Virgin of the Rocks, the group said.
Foundation members say it's unrealistic to think that the woman sat twice for a portrait, but that the meticulous, mathematical approach suggested that Da Vinci may have projected in his mind what she would have looked like between the first alleged “Mona Lisa” and the “Mona Lisa” in the Louvre.
However, the foundation acknowledged that the “Isleworth Mona Lisa” remains unfinished, and that da Vinci didn't paint all parts of the work. Still, the group pointed to newly discovered evidence in 2005 from Heidelberg, Germany, that suggested da Vinci was working on at least the head of such a painting in 1503.
The painting has been in headlines before, starting in the early 20th century. And it's not unknown to a foreign audience: It was shown in Japan last year before the foundation's research was finished.
Experts say Thursday's unveiling was designed to draw more attention and scrutiny from worldwide art experts about whether it's authentic: A start more than a finish.
The Isleworth painting first came to public light after British art collector Hugh Blaker found it in the home of a nobleman in Somerset, England before World War I, said Robert Meyrick, head of the art school at Wales' Aberystwyth University.
Blaker bought the painting and took it to his private studio in Isleworth outside London. U.S. and British newspapers, meanwhile, speculated even then that it might be a da Vinci. But at that time only art experts — not high-tech science tests like the ones conducted by the foundation — could judge its possible bona fides.
During World War II, Blaker shipped the painting to Boston's Museum of Fine Arts for safekeeping, the foundation said. In 1962, it was bought by U.S. collector Henry Pulitzer. When he died in 1979, his reported mistress — Elisabeth Meyer — inherited it, but it remained in a Swiss bank vault.
After she died, an “international consortium” — which the foundation declined to identify — bought the painting in 2008, according to the group's chronology. The foundation was set up two years later, determined to try to show that it was a real da Vinci.
The Mona Lisa Foundation's members are more from the business world than the art world. Participating in Thursday's show was David Feldman, an Irish-born stamp auctioneer; his brother Stanley, an art historian who was the main author of an extensive book on the “Isleworth Mona Lisa”; and Markus Frey, a lawyer in Zurich who is the foundation's president.
The foundation and its backers paid “several million” to conduct research tests — forensic analysis, carbon-dating and computerized regression analysis — on the work, Feldman said. He wouldn't say how much the painting was bought for in 2008.
Carlo Pedrotti, one of the world's most eminent scholars on da Vinci, hailed the foundation's “extraordinary contribution to scholarship.”
In a letter to the foundation presented Thursday, Pedrotti called the group “precisely the sort of research institute, if not a veritable investigating agency — an FBI for Leonardo studies! — that I had always hoped for.”
Martin Kemp, a da Vinci scholar and Oxford University professor, said he hadn't seen the painting but doubts that it is authentic. He cautioned that the foundation might have its judgment clouded by a possible payoff.
“If this were the original version of the most famous picture in the world, heaven knows what it would cost — a lot of money,” he told APTN in an interview at his home near Oxford. “You'd probably be on your way to 200 million pounds ($325 million) or to stratospheric realms.”
“There are big, big stakes involved, and people become committed to it,” he noted.
Still, who wouldn't want to have their own “Mona Lisa?”
“Having a Leonardo is a very sensational thing to have,” Kemp admitted. “If I had a Leonardo, it would secure my fame forever.”
*** *** ***
September 28, 2012
Mona Lisa mystery deepens as another version is unveiled
By JAMEY KEATEN
Associated Press
The Mona Lisa Foundation claims there have always been two portraits of the iconic painting by Leonardo da Vinci, the ‘Earlier Version,’ made 10 years before the ‘Joconde’ that is displayed in Le Louvre in Paris. GENEVA — The mystery behind the most enigmatic smile in art — Leonardo da Vinci's “Mona Lisa” — just got a little more complicated.
In a coming-out party of sorts in Geneva, rounds of flashbulbs popped Thursday as the nonprofit Mona Lisa Foundation pulled back the curtain to present what it claims is a predecessor of the world's most famous portrait.
But even the experts brought in by the foundation weren't sure about that claim just yet.
The art world is prone to all sorts of rumors and speculation — and, periodically — discoveries that jolt accepted norms. Two years ago, a retired French electrician claimed that he had turned up 271 Picasso works that had been sitting for decades in his garage — and Picasso's heirs claimed theft.
But a new claim about the world's most famous painting, which draws millions of visitors to Paris' Louvre Museum each year, resonates like a thunderclap in the art world. It also prompts a new look at a painting that all by itself still raises a lot of questions for experts — not least the timeless “Is she smiling or not?”
The “Isleworth Mona Lisa” features a dark-haired young woman with her arms crossed against a distant backdrop. The foundation insists it's no copy but an earlier version of the Louvre masterpiece.
At the presentation, Alessandro Vezzosi, director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo da Vinci, said the painting was intriguing but needs further study. He declined to line up behind the foundation's claims that it was truly a “Mona Lisa” predecessor painted by da Vinci.
Ever since the 16th century, several historical sources suggest that da Vinci painted two “Mona Lisa” versions. One was of Mona Lisa Gherardo around 1503 that was commissioned by her husband, Francesco del Giocondo, the foundation said. Another — the one in the Louvre — was completed in 1517 for Giuliano de Medici, da Vinci's patron. That theory fits with da Vinci's tendency at times to paint two versions of some of his works, like the Virgin of the Rocks, the group said.
Foundation members say it's unrealistic to think that the woman sat twice for a portrait, but that the meticulous, mathematical approach suggested that Da Vinci may have projected in his mind what she would have looked like between the first alleged “Mona Lisa” and the “Mona Lisa” in the Louvre.
However, the foundation acknowledged that the “Isleworth Mona Lisa” remains unfinished, and that da Vinci didn't paint all parts of the work. Still, the group pointed to newly discovered evidence in 2005 from Heidelberg, Germany, that suggested da Vinci was working on at least the head of such a painting in 1503.
The painting has been in headlines before, starting in the early 20th century. And it's not unknown to a foreign audience: It was shown in Japan last year before the foundation's research was finished.
Experts say Thursday's unveiling was designed to draw more attention and scrutiny from worldwide art experts about whether it's authentic: A start more than a finish.
The Isleworth painting first came to public light after British art collector Hugh Blaker found it in the home of a nobleman in Somerset, England before World War I, said Robert Meyrick, head of the art school at Wales' Aberystwyth University.
Blaker bought the painting and took it to his private studio in Isleworth outside London. U.S. and British newspapers, meanwhile, speculated even then that it might be a da Vinci. But at that time only art experts — not high-tech science tests like the ones conducted by the foundation — could judge its possible bona fides.
During World War II, Blaker shipped the painting to Boston's Museum of Fine Arts for safekeeping, the foundation said. In 1962, it was bought by U.S. collector Henry Pulitzer. When he died in 1979, his reported mistress — Elisabeth Meyer — inherited it, but it remained in a Swiss bank vault.
After she died, an “international consortium” — which the foundation declined to identify — bought the painting in 2008, according to the group's chronology. The foundation was set up two years later, determined to try to show that it was a real da Vinci.
The Mona Lisa Foundation's members are more from the business world than the art world. Participating in Thursday's show was David Feldman, an Irish-born stamp auctioneer; his brother Stanley, an art historian who was the main author of an extensive book on the “Isleworth Mona Lisa”; and Markus Frey, a lawyer in Zurich who is the foundation's president.
The foundation and its backers paid “several million” to conduct research tests — forensic analysis, carbon-dating and computerized regression analysis — on the work, Feldman said. He wouldn't say how much the painting was bought for in 2008.
Carlo Pedrotti, one of the world's most eminent scholars on da Vinci, hailed the foundation's “extraordinary contribution to scholarship.”
In a letter to the foundation presented Thursday, Pedrotti called the group “precisely the sort of research institute, if not a veritable investigating agency — an FBI for Leonardo studies! — that I had always hoped for.”
Martin Kemp, a da Vinci scholar and Oxford University professor, said he hadn't seen the painting but doubts that it is authentic. He cautioned that the foundation might have its judgment clouded by a possible payoff.
“If this were the original version of the most famous picture in the world, heaven knows what it would cost — a lot of money,” he told APTN in an interview at his home near Oxford. “You'd probably be on your way to 200 million pounds ($325 million) or to stratospheric realms.”
“There are big, big stakes involved, and people become committed to it,” he noted.
Still, who wouldn't want to have their own “Mona Lisa?”
“Having a Leonardo is a very sensational thing to have,” Kemp admitted. “If I had a Leonardo, it would secure my fame forever.”
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
“I love to find the beauty in everyday objects.”
Dale Chihuly
Chihuly's Glasshouse. As I looked at this photo, the structure and description of the building reminded me of one of my favorite churches we studied in History of Architecture 102. The epitome of thic's Goals. I was thrilled when I read that, that building is also one of Chihuly's favorites, and was part of the inspiration for the design of his Glasshouse. :) I patted myself on the back - and then committed to visit this great grandchild structure in Seattle, of a chapel I dream of visiting in Paris.
Dale Chihuly
Chihuly's Glasshouse. As I looked at this photo, the structure and description of the building reminded me of one of my favorite churches we studied in History of Architecture 102. The epitome of thic's Goals. I was thrilled when I read that, that building is also one of Chihuly's favorites, and was part of the inspiration for the design of his Glasshouse. :) I patted myself on the back - and then committed to visit this great grandchild structure in Seattle, of a chapel I dream of visiting in Paris.
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
res·o·nance [ rézzənənss ]
1.underlying meaning: the effect of an event or work of art beyond its immediate or surface meaning
2.amplified sound: an intense and prolonged sound produced by sympathetic vibration
3.ringing quality of instrument or voice: an amplification of a sound, e.g. that of an instrument or the human voice, caused by sympathetic vibration in a chamber such as an auditorium or a singer's chest
Beautiful writing makes me want to write. Especially the more it sounds like my own style. As if the vibrations of that story strike up the strings in my own creative self. When the sentence ends, I find myself still humming along. Reminds me of my violin teacher's instruction regarding resonance. When you strike a certain key on one string, others which share an overtone will begin to vibrate, aka, resonate.
Amazing how art resonates, in ways that can be measured in waves and in ways that cannot.
Via Wikipedia: "String resonance occurs on string instruments. Strings or parts of strings may resonate at their fundamental or overtone frequencies when other strings are sounded. For example, an A string at 440 Hz will cause an E string at 330 Hz to resonate, because they share an overtone of 1320 Hz (3rd overtone of A and 4th overtone of E)." > oh how I wish I really understood that.
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Esther was talking at lunch about this book she's reading. She was sharing about the artist and 'stealing' and what not. It is always a tricky subject for artists... none of us are autonomous in art. Yet, how and where and to what degree do we knowingly permit the art of others to influence our own? I tend to hate copying. And being copied, for the sake of copying. I love seeing people do things that they thought up themselves, or that naturally flow out of their personal taste and interests, not as a product of mass media and fashion.
That said....I decided to try a little stealing. The problem with that is, very often the original is still far better.
That said....I decided to try a little stealing. The problem with that is, very often the original is still far better.
I guess my hair was better for trying. I'd tried doing a couple other creative things, but when they all fell apart (literally) and the clock was five past when I should be leaving... I decided to attempt what I'd seen and admired. Why not?
Monday, April 09, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Here's a wild thought. I'm actually highly integrated in an artistic community - already. We don't have weekly dinners nor are we all best friends and collaberating on projects (yet), but I know a lot of highly talented, artistic people. Wild. And somehow suddenly, I'm getting opportunities to call on those people and connect them with clients who need their services. "Katrina, can you send me those photographers you mentioned?" "Do you know any graphic designers?" "We have a client who wants to re-brand, know anyone who could help?" I LOVE THIS. I really do. :) And while there are big dreams in my heart that have yet to be realized, just getting to connect talented, passionate people with those who can utilize their work.... I love. :)
Monday, March 12, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Monday, September 19, 2011
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Last night, driving home from my game I had a dozen different thoughts running through my head. At least three different blog posts were simultaneously rolling along. I got home and contemplated working on my resume, writing out all these blogs, or reading. I showered, ate a bowl of cereal, thought about how much I was craving yogurt and granola, brushed my teeth and went to bed.
So, that unnecessary background information covered, here are a few of my thoughts. For starters, I need to blog. I explained to my sister last week, blogging for me is like digesting. Writing in general is, but this is where I go to write a vast majority of those things. If I don't blog, I get backed up. (Graphic? Sorry.) My productivity at work tends to slow down as all these thoughts start cluttering and multiplying and interbreeding like a bunch of crazy rabbits until I can't even see straight!
For example, this blog. THIS is the product of me NOT blogging yesterday or today. I've worked ridiculously hard, but I feel more ragged than normal. Why? I think partly, no writing outlet. So, you get all these ideas that have been rumbling around in my head until they're behaving a bit like the neighborhood cat that can't walk straight due to a family tree that looks more like a cul de sac. :/ (don't selah here)
All that said: I think I need to get better at letting ideas mull.
I've been considering our generation a lot. We think we're creative, but what have we actually ever made, ourselves? What building have we designed? What ceiling have we been commissioned to paint? What novels have we written? What piece have we composed?
No. It's more like I tumble therefore I am.
And yes, once again, I'm blaming most of it on our ability to get quick but shallow releases of our art. A fix and then we're off to the next. I haven't written anything remarkable. I highly doubt that when I die, people will be purchasing leather bound hard copies of my blog posts rambling on about rabbits and the cat down the street.
Personally, I've got to be careful to not let the pressure release prematurely. That's what I've been becoming more aware of. There's a balance between nurturing and growing through practice and every day experience, and thinking that boarding the plane is actually the point of the trip. It's not even the destination. I've been asking myself these questions more. And praying, Lord, don't let me create my own adventures in order to fill my desires to truly live one. I know He gives us desires to create. We have to become those who can practice and move, but not let ourselves jump the gun and make up our own opportunities to take off the edge of that pressure growing inside us. Let the pressure grow. Let us start to feel an unbearable desire. Let us be okay with feeling the pain, and not getting a quick fix. Or with having questions, and not just googling them.
Maybe I need to let the pot boil a little.
I don't want to buy an adventure from Southwest... when this longing is meant to drive me to my destiny, and completely reorder who I am inside.
Just some thoughts, even as I look expectantly and excitedly at my coming trips.... I don't want them to release what's growing inside me, I want them to ignite and fuel what's being formed in that pressure.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
I'm back, have been for a couple days I guess, but I've felt I should say something and don't exactly know what or how. I felt I should have all my questions answered before returning to blogging, but I don't. But I do have an adjusted perspective and starting point, and a renewed vision to be writing. My perspective and life had turned in quite a lot and I wasn't living out of the central point of bringing God glory, and loving Him and others first. I'd become selfish, again. So, I'm back renewed, adjusted, refreshed.
As for writing, I feel I know less than ever about some things. How much to say, how vulnerable to be, what topics to discuss, if I even should be blogging. Scratch that last one, that is the one answer I think I do know now. I looked over at my 'archives' the other day and thought back to all the writing I've done here since 2006. Masters Commission tour, 4 years of college, graduation, applying to Cambridge (and not getting in), starting full-time work, a handful of friends weddings, now babies, so many changes and revelations, ponderings, free-writes, silly stories, tear-full paragraphs. One of the greatest lessons I learned from SLT, or rather from my facilitator, Jon Pinkston is the value of little things done faithfully over the years. Blogging has been one for me. Sometimes I worry I am pracitcing bad habits, and there might be something there for me to change, but overall blogging and the consistent writing it has provoked has helped shape my writing, making me comofortable with it, better at communicating a clear thought, organizing it, and being willing to offer it. And it has helped shape me.
I've never before been so aware though of all the opinions on writing, and how much is too much to share. I've also never felt I share too much. If anything, I tend to feel I struggle to really share the things that matter. But the other side to this is that I don't care to write things that don't matter. Writing should bring joy, or depth, deep tears, or a laugh, if it doesn't inspire something new in you, or remind you of something you'd managed to forget, what is the point of it? We don't read to discover what we've always known, or what everyone knows. We want to read something that changes us, provokes us, inspires us and challenges us. We want to travel to new places when we read. And so a writer must be willing to step out into those new places, before anyone else and bring others there. But there are so many perspectives on this, and I think much if it is connected to the different callings and personalities of people. I've been seeking the Lord as to what is His will with my writing. Art is vulnerable, it always has been and always will be, and when you create, you become transparent. I remember I hated dance practices in MCs, I felt naked in front of everyone with all that I was processing. I often cried through them. It seems strange, especially to a girl who so enjoyes dancing, but art makes you vulnerable, and you have to be willing to be seen. Those dances were also some of the most life-changing times of my year - letting the Lord work His ways all the way through me.
This week, as I was praying about a lot of this, I suddenly remembered one of the words I was given at the encounter retreat a couple years ago. Someone gave me an easel, and said, "You have to be willing to be on display." They explained how they felt the Lord was telling me I had to allow Him to display my artwork and create with Him, and also how I had to be willing to allow Him to display me as the artwork. The words from the rest of the leaders were all very similar. Amazing how a word like this can come back 2 years later and confirm something amidst all your doubts. The past two years have been a growing journey of willingness to be seen, to allow others to know me, and to discover how to write what matters. I don't care to tell all, but even as I was struggling through the value of mystery (something I've always wanted to hold on to), a friend reminded me, It's all about God revealing His glory through us. So that is what it comes down to, keeping my focus and motivation in bringing Him glory, and partnering with Him in whatever He is doing. And so, I am here again, writing. And whatever you find of me in this, I hope it draws you to Him. Transparency requires a willingness to be seen, but even more than that, it requires a willingness to be seen-through.
(Ha, amazing. In writing this, I think I finally got my answers. And that makes me think all the more how walking in our calling is most often the very route God is waiting to speak to us on. It is in finally making the choice to just do it, not because I felt like it, but because I know that I was created and called to write that He spoke to my heart's questions and confusion.)
As for writing, I feel I know less than ever about some things. How much to say, how vulnerable to be, what topics to discuss, if I even should be blogging. Scratch that last one, that is the one answer I think I do know now. I looked over at my 'archives' the other day and thought back to all the writing I've done here since 2006. Masters Commission tour, 4 years of college, graduation, applying to Cambridge (and not getting in), starting full-time work, a handful of friends weddings, now babies, so many changes and revelations, ponderings, free-writes, silly stories, tear-full paragraphs. One of the greatest lessons I learned from SLT, or rather from my facilitator, Jon Pinkston is the value of little things done faithfully over the years. Blogging has been one for me. Sometimes I worry I am pracitcing bad habits, and there might be something there for me to change, but overall blogging and the consistent writing it has provoked has helped shape my writing, making me comofortable with it, better at communicating a clear thought, organizing it, and being willing to offer it. And it has helped shape me.
I've never before been so aware though of all the opinions on writing, and how much is too much to share. I've also never felt I share too much. If anything, I tend to feel I struggle to really share the things that matter. But the other side to this is that I don't care to write things that don't matter. Writing should bring joy, or depth, deep tears, or a laugh, if it doesn't inspire something new in you, or remind you of something you'd managed to forget, what is the point of it? We don't read to discover what we've always known, or what everyone knows. We want to read something that changes us, provokes us, inspires us and challenges us. We want to travel to new places when we read. And so a writer must be willing to step out into those new places, before anyone else and bring others there. But there are so many perspectives on this, and I think much if it is connected to the different callings and personalities of people. I've been seeking the Lord as to what is His will with my writing. Art is vulnerable, it always has been and always will be, and when you create, you become transparent. I remember I hated dance practices in MCs, I felt naked in front of everyone with all that I was processing. I often cried through them. It seems strange, especially to a girl who so enjoyes dancing, but art makes you vulnerable, and you have to be willing to be seen. Those dances were also some of the most life-changing times of my year - letting the Lord work His ways all the way through me.
This week, as I was praying about a lot of this, I suddenly remembered one of the words I was given at the encounter retreat a couple years ago. Someone gave me an easel, and said, "You have to be willing to be on display." They explained how they felt the Lord was telling me I had to allow Him to display my artwork and create with Him, and also how I had to be willing to allow Him to display me as the artwork. The words from the rest of the leaders were all very similar. Amazing how a word like this can come back 2 years later and confirm something amidst all your doubts. The past two years have been a growing journey of willingness to be seen, to allow others to know me, and to discover how to write what matters. I don't care to tell all, but even as I was struggling through the value of mystery (something I've always wanted to hold on to), a friend reminded me, It's all about God revealing His glory through us. So that is what it comes down to, keeping my focus and motivation in bringing Him glory, and partnering with Him in whatever He is doing. And so, I am here again, writing. And whatever you find of me in this, I hope it draws you to Him. Transparency requires a willingness to be seen, but even more than that, it requires a willingness to be seen-through.
(Ha, amazing. In writing this, I think I finally got my answers. And that makes me think all the more how walking in our calling is most often the very route God is waiting to speak to us on. It is in finally making the choice to just do it, not because I felt like it, but because I know that I was created and called to write that He spoke to my heart's questions and confusion.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)