ArtExpertOnLine

     It has been a long time since we looked at an American landscape, so that is our topic for this week. Our artist is Asher Brown Durand (1796-1886).  He was a member of the Hudson River School, who were a group of artists devoted to painting the Hudson River Valley, the Catskills and Adirondack areas of the American East. Although each painter adopted his own set of objectives, basically they romanticized the area, making it lusher and more idyllic than actual life. They also included everything!   Far more than a person's eye can absorb if on the actual scene.     One thing that is interesting about this is that it was very popular.   This painting was completed in 1847, long before photography, so a landscape painting was the only means city people could see the great wilderness out there, beyond their homes.  So to study all of nature in one image was wonderful.      In 20 plus years, especially in France, this style was exactly what artists rebelled against.  Artists went o

    Ready for a mystery?   Unfortunately I must present one today.  Our artist this week is Arnold Rice and I could not find any information about him!  It is known that he created this work in 1995 and it is now in a private collection.  So this is all the information I can provide.  It is a mystery.     Yet this painting is compelling.  I find it amazing.  Symmetrically designed compositions are very difficult to find.  Often an artist does not use this system of balance because it is considered to confining, limiting freedom of expression. . But obviously and happily, Mr. Rice didn't get that memo!     Let's look at color first:  Blue, brown/orange and yellow (in paint, black is considered the total of all color, white the absence). Rice uses them almost flat, meaning little attempt at creating depth, shape.  The yellow dress is the perfect example. Only under, behind the girl do we see the curves and light shading that tell us where the woman's legs are.  No shadows on

     A dear family member sent me an article last week about Winslow Homer (1836-1910) and this painting.  The article tossed out several theories of what Homer intended in this work.   There was enough discussion of it's meaning while he was still alive, so he wrote an answer, an answer I loved!   The thrust of it was disappointment, feeling that between the title he chose, and the image, if the painting was successful, then the meaning should be clear.      As I have often written, we must come to Art from out own feelings, background and experiences.  It is possible to interpret this painting in several very valid ways.   It is a great work of Art, and has been recognized as one of America's finest paintings.  Allowing it to have significance beyond Homer's original intent is just fine, but please do not confuse the two.       To consider Homer's meaning we should examine his title:  "The Gulf Stream" Since I do not live or regularly vacation anywhere near

        I find it pretty hard not to appreciate Marc Chagall (1887-1985), and especially at the present when there is war and hardship in his native area.   He was born in Liozna, a small Jewish community near the city of Vitebsk, which is in Belarus, part of Russia.  It was here that he grew to love his Jewish heritage and met and married his life partner and wife.  Life as a Jew was difficult almost everywhere Chagall lived as he was always considered an outsider, even in his native Russia.   When deciding to become an artist in his youth, he was told to have any kind of success he would either have to deny/hide his background or cherish it and make it public.  He decided to express it and for the rest of his life he committed his Art to bringing Liozna, Vitesbsk and the Jewish culture to the world.       And so, today, Marc Chagall is one of those artists whose work is easily identifiable.   Although he understood modern movements in his day, he used them effectively for his own ind