Assignment:
Discussion:
We know very little about the ideas of Carel Fabritius, who painted The Goldfinch. However, we do know that many seventeenth-century Dutch artists tried very hard to imitate nature, to the extent that a specific Dutch phrase used by artists survives from that period: the goal of making art "naer het leven" or "directly from life."
In an interview with John K. Grande in 2011, Nils-Udo explained how he had "[t]he idea of planting my work literally into nature-'of making it a part of nature', of submitting it to nature-its cycles and rhythms". He also stated, "By elevating the natural space to a work of art, I had opened myself to reality, to the liveliness of nature-I had overcome the gap between art and life."
If both artists tried to "overcome the gap between art and life" and represent nature as faithfully as possible, in what ways were they successful? In what ways were they not successful? Be specific in your analysis of details of these works of art as you address these question.
Let's explore the still life subject type, where a range of inanimate objects receive attention from artists.
Consider Rebecca Scott's oil painting, Oh, it's a perfect day (2005).
Address one-or both-of the following questions in your discussion post:
1. Examine the range of color used by this oil painter to represent objects on a table. She paints things that our eyes would normally register as white, clear, or reflective-the formal table linens, glassware, and silverware-in almost every color but white. Why do you think she chose so many different colors to paint these objects?
2. Carefully consider the title of this work in relation to details within this painting. Why might Rebecca Scott call this work, Oh, it's a perfect day? Without the title, does the painting itself reveal a perfect day? Why? Or why not?