Caravaggio's Violent Ways

Having taken an introductory art history class last semester, I am somewhat familiar with some of the famous artists of the last several centuries. I remember studying a particular Italian artist named Caravaggio for a few classes. I searched through several scholarly journals and found a particularly interesting article regarding the depiction of violence in Caravaggio’s paintings. The author claims that Caravaggio’s paintings are implicitly violent and this is a result of the time period he lived in. He does this in countering several points of other art historians, that in turn end up leading the audience to agree with his overall thesis.

Originally our author entertains the idea of Caravaggio’s paintings not being violent at heart, but are actually works representative of the Catholic counter culture of his time. He agrees this idea has some merit due to the revolution in classically accepted thinking due to the Renaissance, and he can also see that the violence at times seems to be accepted willingly by the subjects, as if a sign of a sacrifice for a greater cause. This idea seems quickly undermined, though, by the fact that paintings supporting the church were usually done on much larger scales so they could be hung in churches. I believe that our author is correct here, since Caravaggio was anything but a religious man, and so I doubt this would truly affect the subjects of his artwork. Refuting this point, though, allows us to look into another theory surrounding the reason violence is so present in Caravaggio’s paintings, that builds off the fact that the public was very widely exposed to violent scenes and works of art, that was briefly mentioned before.

After disproving the theory of a catholic influence, our author entertains the idea of Caravaggio’s violent paintings being a result of the huge popularity of public executions at the time. This theory somewhat plays off of the first theory, in the sense that opposing the church was a punishable crime in Caravaggio’s time. As mentioned before, people were willing to be executed for opposing the church, and many others were eager to watch. Our author even agrees that some of the initial popularity of Caravaggio’s art spawns from the public’s unusual interest in this phenomena, but concedes that Caravaggio’s own interest in executions is much deeper and knowledgeable than a general civilian’s. This seems very clear from some of the crimes that Caravaggio has been linked to in his time, leading me to believe our author’s point. Although, Caravaggio’s personal interest in violence helps lead us to our third and final theory of Caravaggio’s violent paintings.

The final, and maybe most plausible, theory is that Caravaggio’s paintings depicted a personal disposition for violence. Many of Caravaggio’s biographers agree that he was a quarreler, and often carried a sword in search of a confrontation. Many biographers also agree that Caravaggio was accused and actually convicted of murdering an early rival, a crime he was sentenced to jail for. This seems to paint a picture of a disturbed and violent artist, who was as interested in fighting as he was painting. I agree that this is the most plausible reason for Caravaggio’s paintings to be so violent, and this is the actual reason for it in my opinion. I see Caravaggio as a man completely enshrouded in darkness, which comes to life in his paintings. We will see though, that our author does not completely agree.

While Caravaggio’s background depicts a very clear penchant for violence, our author does not believe this theory explains Caravaggio’s violent pictures entirely. He believes that Caravaggio’s violent past may have helped him visualize and illustrate violence more clearly, but it was a small part of his violent art it seems. The author believes that the real reason Caravaggio’s paintings are so violent is because he is personifying the poetry of his time.


As Caravaggio moved throughout Europe painting masterpieces, his artistic peers were writing very gruesome poems all over the continents. This is not to say that theses poems were unpopular, at the these types of works were what made poets famous, but they did help shift the public’s already disturbing interests more towards gruesome. As civilians became more exposed to and interested in violence, demand for violent artwork of all forms was increased. This unusual interest encouraged and allowed Caravaggio to paint what he was actually interested in, violence. This, according to our author, is the true motivating factor to Caravaggio’s violent pieces of art.

MC Escher's Mind

It was the twentieth century artist MC Escher who once said “Are you sure that floor can’t be a ceiling?” This quote brilliantly illustrates how Escher would tackle the impossible and challenge the absurd. His art was very mathematical and illusionist that required a mind capable of very abstract thinking. His work is appealing to the eye because it presents a dream like state in some place other than reality. In the article “The Sly Hand of MC Escher”, published in Art New England, the author makes the claim that MC Escher’s work “deserves a respect not always applied to other masters of art”. In this post I will explain how the author makes this claim and expound on how I agree with his points.

The author first turns to a piece called “Impossible Reality” drawn by Escher. This depicts a castle in which men are at the top talking through a stair case that is an optical illusion. It is sometimes referred to as a never ending stair case as the top of the stairs are connected to the bottom and if you follow them around they keep going on forever in a circle. At first the viewer does not realize this illusion but upon further examination it is obvious. I think that this piece is a prime example of Escher’s ability to trick the mind and make the viewer feel at home in an impossible state. The title itself is an oxymoron and is an example of the cleverness of Escher’s mind.

The author then says how Escher’s work has been inspiration for many pop culture works of art today. Many graphic artists re make Escher’s ideas and his work has even inspired movies such as “The Invisible Man”. The scene where his head is unraveling like a ribbon is a direct emulation of Escher’s “Rind” which depicts his wife’s face unraveling like a ribbon. His work is also the decoration for many products in today’s market.

The author describes how Escher mastered the “concepts of tessellation
(the division of a plane into equal parts) and "metamorphosis," his optical merging of birds, fish, reptiles, insects, and human figures into mind-bending scenes that defied logic yet ascending and Descending, lithograph, were nonetheless perfectly logical.” This drawing depicts white lizards slowly transforming into black lizards. It is great. I think that is surely a great example of Escher’s genius in his mathematical and pioneer form of art.

MC Escher said “I walk around in mysteries, so I draw them to figure them out.” I think this perfectly illustrates his passion for drawing situations that were impossible and making them seem realistic. I think that the author is correct in saying that he deserves a certain respect different than other artists because he is one of a kind and a pioneer in his illusionist art work. His art work will continue to be some of my favorite, not because it’s controversial, but because I think his art contains the essence of what art is: The process of figuring out and expressing your mind and the world around you.

Works Cited
Starger, S. "The Sly Hand of MC Escher." Art New England 31.6 (2010): 10. Web. 28 Nov 2011.

Norman Rockwell's Rhetorical Impact on the Civil Rights

I remember in high school my teacher handing out political cartoons every week in class, but when I looked at them, it was for maybe 30 seconds, and then I began to do something else. After reading Victoria Gallagher & Kenneth S. Zagacki’s “Visibility and Rhetoric: The Power of Visual Images in Norman Rockwell’s Depictions of Civil Rights” I wish I had taken more time to appreciate what these pictures evoked and made visible for me.

Scholars around the world agree that throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s, visual and media related arts were what influenced the rate that social activists could make a difference for social change. People like Norman Rockwell and Martin Luther King, Jr impacted the world through their strong and loud statements they made through art. “As Laurie Norton Moffatt puts it, Rockwell appeared to share with the publishers of the Saturday Evening Post ‘‘a morality based on popular values and patriotism, a morality that yearns above all for goodness to trump evil.’’ Rockwell painted pictures of that displayed the American Dream perfectly. Pictures of family, sporting events, holidays, and American ideals were painted for the Saturday Evening Post and shown to the world for everyone to see.

However, during the 1960’s Rockwell’s job with the Saturday Evening Post would end because he decide he wanted to impact the civil rights act and begin to drawl striking pictures of segregation and racial conflict. The Saturday Evening Post disagreed and wouldn’t allow colored people on the cover, so Norman Rockwell took his work to the magazine called Look. Gallagher and Zagacki speak of three figures published in Look done by Rockwell. These pictures are a few examples of how loudly Rockwell’s work spoke Rhetorically for the Civil Rights movement. However, Gallagher and Zagacki explain that the Rhetorical Critics of this era focused mainly on civil rights leaders and speeches, and how Rockwell’s work was never recognize for the same effect. Rockwell’s work speaks rhetorically by presenting a visual form of the attitudes, arguments, and ideas in the form of a picture. Through rhetorical evaluation of his work, we can “articulate and to shape public knowledge through offering interpretive and evaluative versions of who does what to whom, when, and where. “ Where Martin Luther King, Jr presented arguments through speech, Rockwell presented arguments through his art that demonstrated the value every individual holds. Most white rhetorical author depicted black people through images that made them inferior or different classes of beings, where as Rockwell steered away from pictures of peaceful patriotic Americana, and dove into a dramatic style to impact social change.

Gallagher and Zagacki came up with three reasons for why Norman Rockwell’s work achieves rhetorical significance. First, how avoids caricatures, to display the black culture in their real form, the same as whites. Second, he displayed the large array of obstacles and confrontation that black people in America dealt with. Lastly, his paintings were displayed during the heart of Civil Rights period where his paintings highlighted the disharmony of the American Society.

Norman Rockwell’s Civil Rights paintings were extremely significant to those who viewed them. The bold pictures printed in every magazine, and newspaper were filled with such great detail and thought that his pictures spoke a thousand words. They removed people from their limited ideals of the world and compelled them to see the world in a different light. The rhetorical power that is withheld in every painting of Norma Rockwell is truly significant. His artwork influenced the growth of America by providing realistic ideas through his loud work, which forced Americans to listen.

Work cited
Gallagher, Victoria, and Kenneth Zagacki. "Visibility And Rhetoric: The Power Of Visual Images In Norman Rockwell's Depictions Of Civil Rights." Quarterly Journal Of Speech 91.2 (2005): 175-200. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.

The Unbroken Lines of Jackson Pollock

In the mid to late 1940’s Jackson Pollock emerged as a major figure in the abstract expressionist movement. After being introduced to the use of liquid paint, Pollock implemented a dripping technique on a horizontally oriented canvas that was unfamiliar to many. Pollock’s implementation of horizontality and gravity as mediums in a majority of his works are considered by many as his greatest contribution to the history of art. 

While attempting to produce long, flowing and unbroken lines Pollock encountered several problems characteristic of easel painting. Pollock was inconvenienced by the continual need to reload his paint brush and the dragging of his hand caused by his strokes against the canvas. After his continued frustration, and implementation of new painting techniques such as squeezing paint directly on to the canvas, Pollock adopted a new method of painting unknown to many. By pouring the pigments on to a flat horizontal canvas Pollock was able to create the long lines he so desired and was no longer required to continually re-administer paint on to his brush. Pouring the paint through the air allowed Pollock to retain more paint on his sticks and trowels, work with fewer interruptions and introduce gravity as a participant in the painting process.

 To some, Pollock’s positioning of his canvas horizontally on the floor was a drastic change from the customs set by painters of the past. Rosalind Krauss, an American art critic and theorist, saw Pollock’s employment of horizontality as a medium as an extreme regression from the intellectuality and knowledge that stems from man’s erect vertical posture. Krauss further argued that the positioning of the canvas on the ground and the pouring of paint was representative of the corporeal acts of defecation and urination. When asked about the unique orientation of his canvas, Pollock did not find it to be unusual, as Orientals have been employing the same technique for hundreds of years prior to himself. Pollock did not implement a horizontal canvas to add deeper meaning to his works but rather he saw this method of painting as the most effective way to achieve his desired results. After completion Pollock’s works were always presented and viewed vertically against a wall, further strengthening the argument that Pollock’s horizontal orientation of the canvas during the painting process had no significant meaning.

 In order to fully understand the effects of Pollock’s unique positioning of his canvas further investigation of his reliance on gravity as a medium is needed. Using pouring as his preferred method of distributing the paint on to the canvas had great consequences on his style of painting, namely transforming his process from a two dimensional to a three dimensional affair. While other artists inevitably had to come in contact with their artwork, Pollock, using his pouring technique, was free to maneuver his sticks in three dimensional space. By doing so, Pollock severed the physical connection between the painter and the painting itself, and truly transformed painting into a three dimensional process.

 However, Pollock also inadvertently sacrificed many luxuries that are available to more traditional painters. Pollock no longer had the ability to suspend his painting at will, as he could no longer interrupt his movements while working through the air. Surprisingly though, Pollack was able adapt this difficulty to his advantage. By pouring the pigment through the air, the canvas recorded not only the volume of paint used but also the velocity at which the pigment was dispensed. In choosing this technique in which the canvas registers nearly all changes in motion or pace, Pollock created a unique relationship with his audience, where the viewer could infer how the effects on the canvas were formed by the artist. Pollock’s paintings amplified the physicality of his process and made it evident to his viewing audience.

 Pollock’s painting process was highly dependent on the use of sufficiently malleable materials that could be effectively manipulated through space. If the viscosity of the paint that he was using was too low, the paint would not form distinct lines on the canvas, resulting in small scattered puddles of watery paint. Conversely, if the paint was too thick, the paint would not be pliable enough and would fall onto the canvas in lumps. In his work, Pollack used both a pouring method, which produced the long unbroken lines, and a dripping method, which allowed Pollack to produce individual dots on the canvas. In order, to accommodate for these two different techniques of paint distribution, Pollack often adjusted the physical consistency of his paints. When pouring, Pollack would increase the volume of paint on his brush and would move the brush at a rate based upon the type of effect he was trying to achieve. To drip, Pollack would decrease the overall volume of the paint on his brush and would move the brush quickly after a sufficient dot was produced. Although discrete droplets appear in many of Pollack’s works, their visual impact is subordinate to that of the linear tracks of paint. Therefore, of the two methods, it was pouring not dripping that provided Pollack’s abstractions with their distinctive character. By fine-tuning the physical qualities of his paint as well as carefully controlling the dispensing process, Pollack was able to produce some of the most vivid evocations of motion in the history of painting.

Works Cited
Cernuschi, Claude, and Andrzej Herczynski. "The Subversion of Gravity in Jackson Pollock's Abstractions." The Art Bulletin 90.4 (2008): 616-39. Art Full Text. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.

Sit Up Straight To Get A's (Part II)

Does Water Make it Better?: Results

Computer Usage Results