Art and Humor

[brianvds]

 

[stlukesguild]

That's probably how some of my students feel when we begin drawing with basic shapes and then add a lot of details. We actually drew a Reindeer... Rudolph... yesterday in the younger classes.

For some reason the First Graders struggled with the Herringbone Brickwork leading to Santa's workshop. Surely, they must have known how essential herringbone brickwork was to the ancient Romans and the construction of Brunelleschi's dome.

 

[brianvds]

 

[stlukesguild]

 

[Bongo]

View attachment 6779

"christmas ear cartoon reminded me about V.G.

Which ear did Van Gogh cut? (Hint: it wasn't his right)
So why is his right ear bandaged? think about it.

 

[E.J.H.]

Ehm, isn't it simply because you wind it around your whole head to make a stable bandage?
Or, number 2 he looked at himself in the mirror while painting, thus producing a mirror image.

 

[stlukesguild]

Mirror

 

[Bongo]

Ehm, isn't it simply because you wind it around your whole head to make a stable bandage?
Or, number 2 he looked at himself in the mirror while painting, thus producing a mirror image.

He's looking in a mirror, so left and right are reversed.

For some reason I have a hard time painting collars and lapels. So I'm always looking to see how other painters handle it.. So many years ago I'm looking at this painting and the coat is bothering me. For one thing he's wearing a ladies coat - buttons on the right - and it just looks awkward to me, out of scale etc. also the door jam is slanted and the sky not painted in, on the picture hanging on the wall - just a single thin brush stroke for the picture frame. It's as if he was in a hurry and a lot of pain. Not bothering with the background or "fixing" the coat - just painting it "as seen" in the mirror. -- which means the opposite ear was the one he actually cut.

Here he is with another self portrait. Van Gogh is right handed, but again painting from a mirror, it's reversed so he' holding the palette instead of the brush in his right hand. But this time he's not in pain so he does a good job rendering the coat and puts the buttons on the correct side for a man's coat.

 

[stlukesguild]

I used to collage as well... but I never bragged about it.

 

[Artyczar]

He's looking in a mirror, so left and right are reversed.

For some reason I have a hard time painting collars and lapels. So I'm always looking to see how other painters handle it.. So many years ago I'm looking at this painting and the coat is bothering me. For one thing he's wearing a ladies coat - buttons on the right - and it just looks awkward to me, out of scale etc. also the door jam is slanted and the sky not painted in, on the picture hanging on the wall - just a single thin brush stroke for the picture frame. It's as if he was in a hurry and a lot of pain. Not bothering with the background or "fixing" the coat - just painting it "as seen" in the mirror. -- which means the opposite ear was the one he actually cut.

Here he is with another self portrait. Van Gogh is right handed, but again painting from a mirror, it's reversed so he' holding the palette instead of the brush in his right hand. But this time he's not in pain so he does a good job rendering the coat and puts the buttons on the correct side for a man's coat.
View attachment 6792

Clothing is weird, and how it's changed over time--and why buttons went on which sides. Generally, the way buttons got their sides for go back to European times. Most clothing was made for the wealthy. Additionally, women worse all kinds of undergarments and complicated dresses where many buttons involved. You could not dress yourself, so the buttons went on the sides that were easier for right-handed dressers to dress you. It was rare you could buy ready-made clothing to dress yourself until later in the 1900s.

 

[brianvds]

Clothing is weird, and how it's changed over time--and why buttons went on which sides. Generally, the way buttons got their sides for go back to European times. Most clothing was made for the wealthy. Additionally, women worse all kinds of undergarments and complicated dresses where many buttons involved. You could not dress yourself, so the buttons went on the sides that were easier for right-handed dressers to dress you. It was rare you could buy ready-made clothing to dress yourself until later in the 1900s.

Something that occurred to me yesterday: formal clothing deliberately designed to impress tends to look utterly ridiculous as soon as it goes out of style or the culture changes:

Hyacinthe Rigaud - Louis XIV, 1701

But this is not nearly as much the case with workman's clothing - an 18th century peasant would hardly look out of place today. Well, at least not remotely as out of place as Louis XIV would look anywhere other than on a theater stage somewhere.

I'm not sure what, if anything, one should make of that.

 

[E.J.H.]

You might have heard it, but this is what Oskar Wilde made of it:

Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.

 

[Artyczar]

That is overly extravagant, isn't it? Borderline, ridiculously opulent and gaudy. Sheesh! The poor women had to do all that too and be strapped in will all kinds of corsets to boot.

 

[stlukesguild]

This church in Tampa, Florida is known as the "Church of the Confused Chicken" for some reason.

 

[joe1It]

the Church of Donald Duck

 

[snoball]

View attachment 6518

Donatello, Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael ​

 

[stlukesguild]

 

[stlukesguild]

 

[brianvds]

 

[stlukesguild]