Day 22 – One Shape Does Not Fit All!

I’m actually writing my blog early in the day today! Our schedule has been all over the place (yup, thanks to the move), so I decided to take advantage of a free moment in the morning to write. Also, sadly, I was unable to have any coffee this morning since our coffee pot was packed away already and I couldn’t sneak out to buy some. So today’s blog is brought to you by some tea I managed to scrounge up and drink out of a Styrofoam cup.

Today will probably be my last day on the subject of Greek Pottery, but I did not want to move on until I discussed the shapes a little bit. Ancient Greek Vases were not “one shape fits all.” As the Metropolitan Museum’s Article yesterday noted, “Painted vases were often made in specific shapes for specific daily uses.” (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/vase/hd_vase.htm). I also found some information on vase shapes from an online Reed College study guide. (http://cdm.reed.edu/cdm4/studyguides/vases/intro-types.html). (No Wikipedia today, either! Go me!)

Examples of some different vase shapes and their uses are amphora (transporting food and wine), kanthoros or kylix (drinking water), lekythos (pouring libations), loutrophoros (carrying water for a bridal bath), and albastron (a tiny vase that could be tied to the wrist for carrying perfumes and oils). As you can see, the vase shapes are a mix of shapes for everyday uses and shapes for special or ritual occasions. This is a picture I found on Reed’s website that shows some of the different shapes:

Again, the complexity of these ancient traditions fascinates me. I’m not sure I can think of something similar today. In our culture, are there really any groups of widely accepted shapes for different purposes? The only thing I could really come up with is that we have different shapes of wine glasses for red wine, white wine, sparkling wine, etc. That doesn’t even come close to the complexity of the Greek Vase shapes. Am I forgetting something? Can you think of an analogous example in our lives today?

Finally, just because, here’s another picture of a Greek vase. This is an amphora shaped jar:

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 21 – Artists at Work: How the Ancient Greeks Made Pottery

So, I wrote briefly about the Orientalizing style yesterday, and while there is certainly much more I could research and write about that style, I want to go ahead and move on to Black and Red Vase Painting. When I looked at an overview of the Greek Styles of Vase Painting, this was my favorite. (Also, I’m getting closer to the end of the 30 days of the “Art” portion of my Coffee Bean Dreams Project, so I don’t want to get too bogged down on any one thing. I might still check out one more area of art before moving on to the next 30 Day Topic!)

Since I found an article on the Metropolitan Museum’s website about black and red figure techniques (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/vase/hd_vase.htm), I decided to take a break from Wikipedia. (True Academics, rejoice!). I liked the article from the Met Museum a lot because it also actually described the process of making the pot. First, it was shaped on a wheel, and if it was a large enough pot it was made in sections. Once the sections had dried they were assembled with clay in liquid form (known as a slip), and then finally the handles were added. To make black figure vases, the figures were applied with a slip that turned black during firing the pots. Red figure vases were the opposite: the figures remained the color of the clay pot while the background was filled with a slip that turned black. The black figure style came first and was gradually replaced by the red figure style as the ancient potters realized the better design possibilities with the red figure technique.

After the pots were shaped and assembled, and the designs applied or filled in, the pots went through a three stage firing process: the first stage, oxidizing, allowed air into the kiln and turned the pot the color of clay; the second stage introduced green wood which reduced the oxygen supply and turned the pot black; and in the third stage more air was allowed in the kiln again which caused glossed areas to remain black but the rest of the pot to turn back to orange.

So, I don’t know if others find the pot-making process itself as fascinating as I do, but for some reason the idea of making pots has always appealed to me. Maybe I should try taking a pottery class one of these days- something about the idea of feeling the wet clay in your hands and then seeing it turn into beautiful vase just seem so wholesome and satisfying. I’ve never really considered myself an artist, but I think I could very much get into making pottery. (How that pottery would actually look is another story, but, you know…)

Ok, I’m off to do more moving related tasks (cannot wait for this weekend for the move to be over!!), but I’ll leave you with a few examples of red and black figure vases from the Met’s website. Notice the many different shapes of the vases!

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 18 – Discovering History through Art

This morning I switched gears a bit to look into another ancient culture’s art – Ancient Greece. You may remember Doc Rose, who recommended impressionist painting to me. She mentioned that I should take a look at Ancient Greek vases because of the wide variety of shapes and techniques. After reading the Wikipedia page on Ancient Greek Pottery (I know, I know, Wikipedia again!), I can verify that this is definitely the case! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_of_ancient_Greece#Red_figure). The development of Greek vase painting is traced through several different styles: protogeometric, geometric, orientalizing, black figure, red figure, white ground technique, and the Hellenistic Period. Are your eyes glazed over yet?!? This is a lot to digest, and I want to spend the next few days looking at the different styles. The black and red figure style looks particularly interesting- check out this example I found on the Metropolitan Museum’s website:

Also interesting: the page mentions that, because pottery is relatively durable, the art on ancient Greek pottery has had a disproportionately large influence on modern understanding of ancient Greek society. This fascinates me- we know much of what we know about the ancient Greeks because of one of their art forms. I feel that art is often considered to be an unnecessary side pursuit in society. I admit I’ve rolled my eyes at art and the need to be “cultured” more often than once. But in the case if the Ancient Greeks, their art served quite a useful purpose – since centuries upon centuries later we can learn about their lives and history through that art. I think that’s pretty cool, don’t you?

Finally, before I sign off today - Happy Memorial Day! Thanks to all of the brave men and women who have given their lives serving in the U.S. Military.

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 17 – Art for the Dead

Today, I wanted to talk a little bit about the tomb of Khonsu, another of the Egyptian tombs I’ve been looking at. (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/srvt/hd_srvt.htm). Khonsu was part of a crew of artisans who carved and decorated royal tombs in the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt. What a job to put on your résumé, right? These artisans put an enormous amount of time and effort into creating the Pharaohs’ tombs, but they also used their talents to create their own (more modest) tombs.

Khonsu had two anthropoid coffins prepared for him (see below). (Apparently, the term “anthropoid coffin” refers to a coffin in the shape of a human). Khonsu’s coffins were covered with various magical symbols and texts. As you can see from the picture, the details are quite elaborate.

Khonsu’s tomb also contained shawabtis – little figurines which would substitute for Khonsu if he were called upon to perform manual labor in the afterlife. (See an example, below. Also, can we just pause here for a moment and say, it would be awesome if I could get some shawabtis to take care of things for me in this life?)

There was obviously a lot of attention to detail put into these coffins and they are, I think, very beautiful. And this was not even the coffin of royalty. Take a look below at the death mask of the famous King Tut. This beautiful masterpiece is made of gold, colored glass, and semiprecious stones. (http://wysinger.homestead.com/kingtutankhamun5.html)

It’s kind of amazing how much work was put into items that were only going to be buried in a tomb. For the Ancient Egyptians, who had strong beliefs regarding the afterlife, I guess it makes sense. I’m glad that these works of art finally made it out of the tombs and into museums so we can enjoy them today. I bet the individuals who were buried with these items would have been appalled, however, to know the eventual fate of their tombs’ treasures! Is it disrespectful that we now use these treasures for our own artistic gain? It might seem silly, but who are we to say that Khonsu doesn’t still need his shawabtis to help him with manual labor in the afterlife? I suppose the answer to that is that, as our understanding of the world evolves, it’s pretty unlikely that the kind of afterlife that Khonsu anticipated exists, and these treasures serve a better purpose being used for the education and enjoyment of modern people. What do you think?

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 16 – Art in the Everyday

Today I’m going to talk about something that struck me as I was reading about the tomb of Hatnofer- one of the tombs I mentioned in my blog yesterday. (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/htnf/hd_htnf.htm) It really stood out to me that the Egyptians seemed to decorate so many “everyday” objects. For example, Hatnofer’s tomb contained several mirrors. I’ve posted a picture of one of these, below. The handle of the mirror shows a woman’s face with cow’s ears and a curled wig (which symbolized Hathor, the goddess of love and beauty – the Egyptians’ entire lives seemed to have pretty much revolved around their religious beliefs). Although a mirror is a basic utility item, this mirror contains this artistic depiction of a goddess, an important part of Hatnofer’s life.

I’m not sure if it was just that the “special” items which made it into the Egyptians’ tombs, while the actual common, everyday items weren’t decorated; or, if all utility items in Ancient Egypt were decorated symbolically. But, it made me think about how sometimes art is all around us. For example, my favorite coffee mug is decorated with a strawberry pattern. I love how it looks and I bought the mug because of the pattern. I certainly did not need any more mugs, and the mug would certainly function just as well if it were plain white. However, seeing those strawberries in the morning as I pour my coffee just makes me happy for some reason.

Today, these ponderings just left me full of random questions. What purpose does art serve in our everyday life? To make us happy, like the strawberries on my mug? To symbolize important aspects of our lives, like the goddesses on Hatnofer’s head? Do these things even really “count” as art? Or, maybe, a better question is, what should the requirements be for something to count as art? Is happiness/symbolism enough, or do we need something else- some kind of official, technical merit, if you will? I think, maybe, that is something every person decides for himself or herself.

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 15 – Egyptian Tombs

I didn’t have much more time to blog today. My family was still in town and then I had to take Baby Girl for her two month shots. She was not happy about that, and was obviously not feeling well afterwards. However, she finally took a nap and when she woke up seems to be feeling better. I’m just crossing my fingers that she doesn’t get a fever – I’m pretty much terrified of her getting a fever!

Even though this blog is going to be short again today, I just wanted to talk a little more about the Egyptian tombs I’ve been reading about during my coffee time. It’s really interesting to me that the Egyptians spent so much time and so many resources on burying people. The Metropolitan Museum’s website discusses three different tombs which were excavated in Egypt by an expedition of the Metropolitan’s Department of Egyptian Art. The tombs belonged to Wah, Hatnofer, and Khonsu. I’ll be writing more about these tombs and searching for others over the next few days. I have to say, I do love ancient art like this. It’s all got such a haunting, otherworldly feel. Perhaps it’s because the Egyptians were decorating for people who had died, or perhaps it’s because these pieces are just so very, very old! Either way, I’m looking forward to more learning over the weekend, and to reinvigorating my discovery of art. In the meantime, here’s a vignette from a coffin lid, from sometime around 1279-1213 B.C.

Have a great holiday weekend, everyone- and check in for blog updates if you have a chance!

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 14 – Coming Soon - but not today - Egyptian Art.

So, this morning, I was trying to think of a different direction to go in learning about art. I tried to think about experiences I have really enjoyed at museums, and I remembered a really nice exhibit I once saw about the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamun. Ancient art, and Ancient Egyptian art in particular, really fascinates me.

I looked for Egyptian art on the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s website, and found some information on Egyptian tombs that I think might be a good place to start. (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/egtb/hd_egtb.htm). However, I have family in town and have had a long day, so you’ll have to wait until tomorrow or this weekend for a full blog on this type of art. I’m too tired to write much right now. In the meantime, here’s an Egyptian painted limestone on which to feast your eyes. More soon!

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 12 – Art or Laziness?

I woke up very excited today- my brother and his wife and toddler son are on their way to Chicago to visit us! I can’t wait for Baby Girl to meet her cousin! I was already bouncing around the house, but, I decided today would nevertheless be a good day to drink an entire pot of coffee. (But it’s only one of those little four cup pots. Don’t judge.)

I turned my jittery attention to Cubism. (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cube/hd_cube.htm) As I believe I mentioned in an earlier blog, Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque are credited with creating Cubism between 1907 and 1914. (And, as I believe I’ve also mentioned, I’m not so much a fan of cubism or abstract painting styles). Basically, Cubism rejected the idea that art should imitate nature and instead focused on fractured geometric forms. At first, the subject of Cubist paintings was usually discernible, but between 1910 and 1912 “high” Analytic Cubism was popular and works were so abstracted that it was difficult to really see what they were- although popular themes were still lifes of musical instruments, glasses, and the human face and figure. Still Life with a Bottle of Rum, pictured below, is an example of one of Picasso’s Analytic Cubist works. Synthetic Cubism came between 1912-1913, and began with the technique of  papiers collés – placing large pieces of printed or colored paper into a composition to allude to a particular object. Man with a Hat and Violin, pictured below is an example of a work created using  papiers collés.

So, I think it’s important to say that, although I am not particularly moved by the Cubist works, I understand that it is art on purpose and there is some method to the madness. These artists were not just being lazy and “throwing paint on a canvass and calling it art,” which I feel is a popular thing to say when you don’t like this style. They were experimenting with a particular technique. That technique grew and evolved, and many of these works are considered serious works of art today and enjoyed by many people. So, even though this style is not exactly my cup of tea, I think it’s quite fair to say that their experimentation was not for nothing.

Do you enjoy Cubist works? If not, can you at least appreciate that there was an artistic effort being made, or do you think I’m crazy for thinking that such works are indeed masterpieces of art?

Picasso - Still Life with a Bottle of Rum

Picasso - Man with a Hat and Violin

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 9 – Comfortable, Familiar Picasso?

I already knew before I started research for today that I was not going to be a fan of Picasso or Cubism. Perhaps that’s not the best attitude to have considering that the point of this exercise is to learn, and having strong pre-conceived notions about something is not the best way to learn. It is what it is, however. I do feel that if I want to obtain a good overall knowledge of art, I can’t ignore Picasso. It’s definitely going to take more than one day to really delve into Picasso, but I feel as though if I’m going to not like a big name like Picasso, I should at least know why.

Picasso, along with Georges Braque, created Cubism, which aimed to emphasize the two-dimensionality of the canvas and fractured objects into geometric forms. (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cube/hd_cube.htm). I’ll expand on Cubism and Braque another day, but I want to focus on a particular piece by Picasso today. When I think Picasso, I automatically think of disfigured, disjointed faces and strange indefinable shapes, and he certainly has quite a few paintings that fit this description. He did much more than just painting, though – I learned that he put out over 20,000 works of art which included “paintings, prints, drawings, sculptures, ceramics, theater sets and costumes that convey myriad intellectual, political, social, and amorous messages.” (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/pica/hd_pica.htm).

There is one of Picasso’s sculptures that I have personally seen many, many times. It’s the Chicago Picasso (officially untitled, pictured below), and it’s located outdoors in the Daley Plaza in Chicago. Since I am a lawyer living in Chicago, I’m pretty familiar with Daley Plaza – it’s right outside the Daley Center which contains over a hundred state court courtrooms. Apparently this statue caused a lot of controversy, and was unpopular with a many people. Picasso never revealed what this strange statue was intended to represent, but a newspaper columnist said “it has a long stupid face and looks like some giant insect that is about to eat a smaller, weaker insect.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Picasso). I have to say I don’t necessarily disagree, although to me it also looks quite a bit like a strange dog figure.

I’m not necessarily a fan of the style, although to be honest strange shapes in sculptures bother me less than in paintings, for whatever reason. However, this statue is comforting to me in an odd way, simply because it is so familiar. I have seen it so many times, and it just feels like it belongs there and makes sense. This made me wonder… is the kind of art we like often a function of what we have seen over and over? Is “good art” really just “familiar art”? And although I’m generally not a fan of Picasso’s works, if I saw his paintings over and over, say, if I hung one up in my apartment, then would I eventually decide I like the style?

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 8 – Fauvism and *Another* Lawyer Turned Artist. Le Sigh

Today I spent time reading about Fauvism (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/fauv/hd_fauv.htm). The Fauvism movement was known for using brilliant colors and spontaneous brushwork. This intense, emotional style eventually gave way to Cubism, but before it did several artists experimented with the Fauve style.

Henri Matisse was a name listed among the Fauvist artists which I recognized (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/mati/hd_mati.htm). Matisse had a career that lasted over six decades! And… he was originally trained as a lawyer. (Seriously- I think I might need to find a second career that lets me be creative. It seems a lot of former lawyers have!) Matisse was a prolific artist who experimented with a variety of painting styles, including Impressionism, Neo-Impressionism, and, briefly, Fauvism. He also dabbled in sculpture and even book illustration! One of his Fauve paintings was The Young Sailor (pictured below). You can see the intense colors and spontaneous brushwork. I’m not so much a fan of the brushwork but I do like the colors. I’m not sure what else to say about this style- I feel like the closer and closer I get to modern times the less I like the artwork.

Next up will be Cubism, which was created by Picasso. I’m already pretty sure I won’t be a fan, but I’ll save a more in depth discussion for tomorrow. In the meantime, here’s that Matisse painting. Happy Weekend, everyone!

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 7 – Is “Crazy” (or being an Incan Savage) a Requirement for a Good Artist?

I got some coffee creamer yesterday, so I put the green tea away and switched back to coffee today. By the way, I love coffee but I don’t necessarily consider myself a coffee snob. Sometimes I buy really expensive coffee online, sometimes I pick up a bag of beans at Starbucks, and sometimes I grab stuff from the sale bin at Target. Today’s selection was one of those sale bin specialties – Target Brand White Chocolate Strawberry Coffee. If you’re wondering how the heck Target flavored their coffee like white chocolate strawberries, you would be justified in doing so. Let’s just say it smells delicious while brewing and tastes like chemicals when you actually drink it. Thank goodness I had a fresh supply of creamer to take the edge off a bit.

So today while drinking coffee creamer with a bit of coffee, I continued reading some about Post Impressionism. I browsed through some information on Paul Cézanne and Georges Seurat, but today’s real find came when I read a biography page on Paul Gaugin (find it here: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/gaug/hd_gaug.htm).  I have to admit today’s blog strays a little bit away from a review of the actual art and into gossip tabloid-esque territory… but I really can’t help it when I read things like “Descended on his mother's side from Peruvian nobility, [Gaugin] spent his early childhood in Lima. He would later misrepresent his ancestry to portray himself as an Incan savage” and “Gauguin encouraged van Gogh to paint as he himself did, from memory and imagination… rather than from motifs in nature. Their collaboration ended abruptly when van Gogh had a mental breakdown and cut off part of his left ear.” Seriously, is it a requirement that you have to be a little crazy to be creative? I mean, we have here a fake Incan savage and someone who cut off his ear. There’s a lot more interesting information in the biography- I encourage you to give this one a read. I can only imagine the US Weekly covers if these artists were alive and famous today. Is it necessary to be a little crazy to create this level of art, and, if so, is it worth it for humanity? Sure, we have some awesome art thanks to these guys, but maybe they would have personally been better off in a bit more stable of a career? I’m not sure there is a good answer to that question. You have to take care of yourself, but you also have to follow your passion, I think.

Gaguin poured a lot into his art. He started out as an Impressionist, but eventually moved past this and set the stage for Fauvism and Expressionism (which I definitely need to study some as I continue my art journey). He spent time living in Tahiti, which  influenced his painting. His masterpiece was painted while he was there, and is entitled Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? (pictured below). It’s an allegorical painting known as a culmination of his art. I’m not sure how I feel about, except to say that the title itself definitely shows Gaguin had a troubled, searching heart. The painting seems busy and tense to me. I like the colors, but that is about it. Something about it moves you, though. Perhaps it is knowing that Gaguin was troubled. Although I’m not sure I understand the technical merit of the painting, seeing the title and feeling the haunting emotion behind the painting makes it hard for me to just dismiss it outright. Is emotion the most important aspect to art?

I’m not quite sure how to answer that question.

Xoxo, Diana

Day 6 – Post-Impressionists: Responding to the Impressionists!

Thankfully, I was able to get more sleep last night. It cooled down to the mid-50s here in Chicago, and the AC repair guy came, so Baby was a much happier sleeper and made it for a five and a half hour stretch. She’s starting to pretty consistently sleep somewhere between five and six hours at night, which is absolutely glorious after a few weeks of only an hour at a time. I always give people the side-eye when they tell me the newborn phase is the best. I mean, sure they are so adorably tiny and sweet, but they NEVER sleep a good stretch. At least not at night. At least mine didn’t. Maybe you had a unicorn baby.

By the way, the problem with the AC was that the guy who replaced our furnace in January (after the -30 Polar Vortex shenanigans caused the old furnace to give up the ghost) never reconnected some vital wires to the AC unit. The repair guy yesterday rolled his eyes and said the furnace repairman probably did this on purpose so he’d automatically have an easy service call in the queue when the weather warmed up. I didn’t bother telling Mr. AC that Mr. Furnace was from the same repair company as him.

But I digress. With a fresh brain this morning, and a fresh cup of green tea (hey, I’m out of coffee creamer and didn’t feel like black coffee), I sat down to figure out what came after the impressionists. Google informed me it was… drum roll please… the Post-Impressionists! I returned to the Metropolitan Museum’s website to learn more (check out their information on Post-Impressionism here: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/poim/hd_poim.htm). I’m really liking the Metropolitan’s educational content. They have easily digestible, well-organized chunks of information that I can read over coffee (or tea!) in the morning without feeling overwhelmed. There are other schools of painting that also followed the Impressionists, but Post-Impressionism is what I landed on this morning.

I learned that the Post-Impressionists were responding to the Impressionists by expressing emotions rather than just optical impressions. Their art had themes of deeper symbolism and abstract tendencies. Two names I recognized from the list of Post-Impressionists were Paul Cézanne and Vincent Van Gogh. Although I’ve never been much of an art buff, I always thought I liked Van Gogh’s work. I actually had the chance to visit the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam a few years ago, but the day I went it was unbearably crowded and very difficult to really enjoy the artwork. Reading through the Metropolitan’s page on Van Gogh, however (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/gogh/hd_gogh.htm), I realized that there are a few of his landscapes that I like, such as Wheat Field with Cypresses and The Starry Night, (pictured below), but other than that I don’t really like his style. For example, I really do not like Olive Trees or A Corridor in the Asylum (also pictured below). Perhaps it’s because I don’t like the abstract aspect of his paintings as much. I always had it in my head that I preferred abstract works, but comparing Van Gogh’s work to the Impressionist works I’ve been looking at over the last few days, I have to say I prefer the less abstract style of the Impressionist paintings. I think I need to look at a few more Post-Impressionist artists to decide, though, so that I get a better feel for the differences between the two styles. That will be my goal for the next few days!

Paintings I liked:

Wheat Field with Cypresses

The Starry Night

Paintings I didn't like:

Olive Trees

A Corridor in the Asylum

Xoxo, Diana

Day 5 - Monet's Badge of Honor

I’m feeling decidedly uninspired today, which may have something to do with the fact that I didn’t get much sleep last night. Yesterday was one of the first warm days in Chicago this year, and sometime in the late afternoon I realized that the AC wasn’t working. We opened all of the windows, but there aren’t any windows in the bedroom. (We live in a one bedroom right now and the baby sleeps in a bassinet in the bedroom). So… it was pretty warm and the baby was pretty unhappy about that and didn’t sleep well. Which means Mama didn’t sleep too great, either.

So, this morning while I drank my coffee, I was much more interested than usual in the amount of caffeine in said coffee. I had thought I was going to expand beyond the Impressionists today, but my groggy brain couldn’t figure out what I wanted to research. (Hey, I’m sure even the big name priv-lit authors I mentioned in my introductory blog had days like this!) I feel like you can’t really go wrong with Monet, so I decided to continue my exploration of his works.

I read the Metropolitan Museum’s page about Monet. (Find it here: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cmon/hd_cmon.htm ) Again, more than his work itself, I’m drawn to his story. I like to read about how the Impressionists were criticized in their time, and yet continued to paint in the Impressionistic style anyways. The article on Monet says that the Impressionists considered the criticism as a “badge of honor.” What if they had given up? What if Monet had followed the crowd and painted in the fashion that the “experts” thought he should? He might not be nearly as famous, or have had nearly the influence that he did. I think this is an important lesson for us all. As cliché as it may sound, not giving up in the face of criticism, and even using criticism to motivate you, really is such an important lesson. How many times have I not done something because there was even a *possibility* that others might think it was stupid? At first, I did not even want to write this simple blog because I thought it might appear to be a silly idea compared to Elizabeth Gilbert’s travels or Gretchen Rubin’s seemingly charmed New York life. But you know what? I’ve had a few people tell me they enjoy reading it, and I’m enjoying giving my morning coffee time a purpose. So here’s to Monet, and to viewing criticism as a badge of honor! You can accomplish so many things when you don’t listen to other people’s negativity!

Today’s picture is of Women in the Garden, one of Monet’s paintings initially considered too ambitious by many artists of his day:

Xoxo,

Diana

Day 3 - Moms in Art

This morning I decided to look a bit into mothers portrayed in art, since today is Mother’s Day. I’m very excited about Mother’s Day this year, since it’s my very first one. I was hoping my seven week old daughter would decide to scream and cry a little less today as a Mother’s Day present, but she seemed unimpressed by the holiday and continued on with business as usual. Oh well, c’est la vie.

I simply googled “motherhood in art” and came across this four and a half minute lecture from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. (Find it here: http://www.metmuseum.org/connections/motherhood/). This is the perfect snippet of information to watch over morning coffee. The lecturer, Jean Sorabella, talked a bit about how she rarely sees an image where it appears that the mother has work to do- most of the mothers she comes across in works of art seem to have perfect angel children. These moms have it all together. Of course, this is not reality, and the idealizations of the moms in the works Sorabella presented did irk me a bit. It gave me the same kind of feeling of annoyance I get when someone asks me if my newborn is sleeping through the night yet. People have been asking me this since she was just days old, when of course she was not sleeping through the night. But, everyone seems very concerned that my daughter causes the least amount of disruption in my life. Obviously, anyone who has kids or has spent much time around people who do have kids knows that kids cause a lot of disruption. It’s just the way it is. But the art Sorabella presented seemed to follow the general trend I’ve seen of idealizing motherhood instead of portraying it as the hard work that it is. This kind of annoyed me, but I might be particularly sensitive to this right now since I'm a first time mom with a newborn and a bit overwhelmed with the responsibility.

The lecture did introduce me to Mary Cassatt, whose works mainly portray motherhood. I did a little bit of quick research on Cassatt and I enjoyed viewing some of her pieces. Coincedentally, she was an impressionist, so she fits right in with the works I’ve been looking into over the last few days. Below is one of her works I came across and liked, titled Summertime. With summer looming around the corner, it seemed appropriate and put a smile on my face.

Enjoy, and Happy Mother’s Day to all the moms out there!

Xoxo, 

Diana