a10 6800k,电大学位英语考试,芦笋产地
艺术的魅力 最根本的差异源于这一事实Shonebare使用人体模型,安装在一个画廊,而庚斯博罗画油画。我很着迷Shonebare如何使用的概念建立了油画画家和一个安装在3 d从玻璃纤维,穿衣生活大小在非常明亮的彩色棉织物人体模型,但没有他们的头。另一个明显的两位艺术家之间的区别是,排除了景观而其他包括他心爱的风景,这是一个他的绘画的重要组成部分。 庚斯博罗,景观非常重要,通过结合肖像画与景观,这帮助他弥补他爱的景观,同时,获得了生活,但也给了我们一个历史了解那个时期的景观和农村。庚斯博罗的夫妇几乎出现二次,安德鲁斯坐在橡树和包含在这张照片,而Shonebare排除这完全改变了主题作品。 针对这一事实Shonebare排除了景观重要的景观描绘了财富和地位的安德鲁斯和排除,Shonebare已经带走一定的权力和财富。 Although it could not be said they were rebels, both appear to have worked outside the artistic parameters expected of them by their peers and society. Gainsborough was an outsider, in the sense that he was a self-made country lover, someone who refused to be influenced by the Masters such as his contemporary Joshua Reynolds, who painted portraits on large canvasses without a landscape background and Gainsborough continued to paint portraitures with the landscape as the background. Shonebare on the other hand has worked outside the expected boundaries of a British artist of African descendant by excluding the heads, something the Yoruba tribe, his family ancestry, considers to be 'the seat of the soul'. The fundamental differences stem from the fact that Shonebare used mannequins, installed in a gallery, whereas Gainsborough painted in oil on canvas. I was fascinated as to how Shonebare had used the concept of an established oil painter and made an installation in 3-d from fibreglass, dressing the life size mannequins in strikingly bright coloured cotton fabrics, but without their heads. Another obvious difference between the two artists is that one has excluded the landscape whereas the other has included his beloved landscape, which was a significant part of his paintings. For Gainsborough, the landscape was extremely important and by combining portraiture with landscape, this helped him to cover his love of landscape and at the same time, earned a living, but it also gave us an historical insight into the landscapes and the countryside of that period. Gainsborough's couple almost appear secondary, with the Andrews sitting under the oak tree and just about included in the picture, whereas Shonebare has excluded this which alters the subject piece completely. The fact that Shonebare excludes the landscape is significant as the landscape depicts the wealth and status of the Andrews and by excluding this, Shonebare has taken away a degree of this power and wealth. This sprawling estate and public pronouncement of wealth may have been imperative to show status and affluence in 18th century Britain but in Post-Modern Britain, and especially in the 1990s when there was a recession, Shonebare may have deliberately excluded these details which may have appeared irrelevant to him; he may have considered the idea too showy and unpalatable to flaunt wealth in this particular way, even although there were and still are very rich people in today's society. There may also have been practical reasons for this exclusion on Shonebare's part, but it could well be the concept appeared old fashioned. The calming blue grey background contrasts well against the vibrant colours of the mannequins fabrics and because there is no struggle for attention and every detail in the mannequins stand out. Paradoxically, although the colours of Shonebare's Mr & Mrs Andrews seem vibrant, the plain background has muted the installation, depicting a clean looking setting. By excluding the estate, this has partly taken away the message of wealth and gentrification but Shonebare has cleverly managed to convey the impression of an outdoor scene, helped by the presence of the Rococo style bench and the gun under Mr Andrews' arm, although the installation is inside a gallery. It has to be remembered that Gainsborough was a school friend of Mr Andrews and this painting was done soon after he married Frances Carter when he was 22 and she was 16. Robert Andrews had now inherited not only part of his father's estate but now owned a considerable portion of the adjourning estate owned by his father-in-law. This landscape was therefore not from Gainsborough's imagination, but a real estate. It is unlikely that the picture was left solely to Gainsborough's discretion as the entire setting seems carefully delineated with Mr Andrews desperately trying to portray a casually dressed country gentleman, slouching forward to give the impression of informality yet appearing to look proud before his sprawling estate and cradling his gun, crossing his legs, with his dog looking at him. The three small trees on the right balance the large oak tree in the foreground on the left under which the couple are positioned, but one can but wonder the reasoning behind choosing for the couple to be under an oak tree. The oak tree is full of symbolism and Gainsborough may well have been reinforcing the message of Mr Andrews' strength, courage, steadfastness, and commitment to perhaps his estate and his wife. Although Gainsborough may have tried to make the portrait informal, Mrs Andrews does not look casual, dressed in fine satin clothing, which was probably the latest fashion at the time, although there is a slight evidence of casualness with the ribbon on her bonnet appearing to be falling down. She dresses in what appears to be an up to the minute Rococo style attire and is sitting primly on a Rococo style bench with her legs femininely crossed. But what was Rococo? Rococo was partly characterised by gracefully forming curves and pastel shades, originated in France, and Gainsborough was a big follower of the French Rococo artist, Jean-Antoine Watteau. In comparison to the rest of her body, however, Gainsborough's Mrs Andrews has extremely narrow shoulders which seems out of proportion to her neck, and I wonder if this was naturally so or if it was to underline that she was the subordinate of the two. Mrs Andrews' faint smile indicates decorum although her narrow shoulders and posture reveals a degree of subjugation and possibly domination by her confident, no-nonsense, businesslike husband. Gainsborough's painting shows clearly how it used to be in the past with the man standing next to his belongings: his wife, dog, gun and his estate in the background. On the other hand, Shonebare's Mrs Andrews' posture has revealed a more confident looking woman with the shoulders being broader, not drooping and the fact that the couple looks more equal has automatically transformed Shonebare's mannequins into the 21st century. Like Reynolds, Gainsborough depended on portraiture as his main source of income but Gainsborough hated portrait painting, which he famously calls "The Curs'd Face Business" and it is almost as if Shonebare has responded to this remark by removing the heads from his mannequin installation of Mr & Mrs Andrews. Gainsborough felt "portraits bounded him to the wishes of his sitters." ".......Nothing is worse than gentlemen - I do portraits to live and landscapes because I love them", he once said to a friend. However, Shonebare's installations without heads would not have worked in Gainsborough's 18th century England for the simple fact that there were no gallery commissions and artists relied on wealthy patrons, commissioning for their portraits and other subjects to be painted. As there was no photography then, having a portrait painted was fairly expensive and only the very rich could have afforded this indulgence. This was a way of advertising to peers and the world that you had arrived. These were usually large pieces, showing grandeur and wealth, with the patrons dictating to the artist the kind of end result they desired. I have seen Gainsborough's Mr & Mrs Andrews, one of his most famous paintings, at the National Gallery and it is not a large canvas when compared to the others in the Gallery, but the viewer is immediately drawn to their eyes, staring straight at you, inviting you into their world. Shonebare on the other hand has used the vibrant colours of the materials as his Mr & Mrs Andrews' 'eyes', to draw in the viewers' attention, as by not having any heads, the viewer's eyes are drawn immediately to the mannequins dressed in theatrically bright colours. It's interesting that Shonebare has created his mannequins without heads as the face and eyes are the main parts that help to distinguish a human being - it is like the window of a person's character and soul and by excluding this, he could have created an emptiness in the story. However, it seems to work as the mannequins appear to be 'alive', looking at the viewer, although because they are made out of fibre glass, there is evidence of rigidity in the hands. It could also be argued that there is something quite unsavoury, disturbing and controversial about having decapitated heads in galleries, especially when the mannequins are dressed in period clothes, and made to look like human beings. Having looked at it several times, the installation is quite surreal as on the one hand landed gentry is observed, but on the other, the eyes are seeing bright coloured clothes which is incongruous as these would be far too garish for these upwardly mobile folks in 18th century England. |
