Did thei the mash? Forsooth, the monster mash!

Did thei the mash? Forsooth, the monster mash!
His paintings were mostly devoted to the 17th century. He also worked on frescoes for Saint Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod and mosaics for the Church of the Savior on Blood in Saint Petersburg. There are 24 of his mosaics on the walls of Church of the Savior on Blood (17 inside and seven outside) (1897–1900). In the later 19th century he became interested in the life of contemporary Russian peasants (such paintings as Tea-Drinking and A Young Man Breaking into the Girls' Dance).
The deep study of history made his paintings very reliable, but they did not evoke any sympathy in his contemporaries. Unlike Vasily Surikov, who used the dramatic historical episodes as his subjects, Ryabushkin painted everyday life of the 17th century. His works lack action, they do not depict social conflicts, as the democrats liked. On the other hand, they are not so “beautiful” to reflect the tastes of the rich conservatives. Nobody knew where to place Ryabushkin’s paintings and just did not accept them.
In 1903 Ryabushkin was diagnosed with tuberculosis. He went to Switzerland for treatment but it did not help. He died in his studio in Didvino on 27 April 1904. He is buried in Lyuban, and his tomb is protected as a cultural monument.[1]
Lee Krasner (October 27, 1908 - June 19, 1984) was an influential American abstract expressionist painter in the second half of the 20th century. "Painting, for me, when it really 'happens,' is as miraculous as any natural phenomenon-as, say, a lettuce leaf."1 Although she consistently refused to "explain" the meanings of her works, Lee Krasner often indicated that even her most abstract paintings had ties to nature. For decades she had to struggle against the title of "wife of" but she was far more than than.
The other caveat is that Krasner does not fit comfortably into any of the narratives of Abstract Expressionism. She never became a gestural painter armed with a loaded brush (de Kooning and Franz Kline). She never developed into a field painter (Mark Rothko and Barnett Newman), or a geometric one (Ad Reinhardt), nor did she work in a large, all-over mode during the late 1940s. The point of these and other damning reservations is to diminish Krasner’s independence and strength, to deny her singular achievement.
We know that Pollock was self-destructive, but Krasner was not. There are no stories of her drinking, as there are of other Abstract Expressionists, including some of the women. There are no tales of her losing control. Known for being highly critical of her own work, and for destroying many of her works, Krasner changed paths a number of times throughout her career, an arc that has divided critics. She didn’t internalize destructiveness, she externalized it, which goes against our romantic view of the Abstract Expressionists and their hard-drinking ways.
With her claims to communication with spirits, and the pioneering abstractions she made before those of many famed male modernists, the artist Hilma af Klint has been a constant source of intrigue over the past decade. A new documentary about the artist and an exhibition originally expected to open this month at the Moderna Museet in Malmö, Sweden, occasion a look back at the artist’s mysterious work. Below, a guide to the elusive artist’s life and work.
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/artists/beyond-the-visibile-hilma-af-klint-review-1202683760/
She wasn’t well-known until the past decade.
There were some practical reasons for why af Klint’s work wasn’t widely exhibited for years. Before she died in 1944, she stipulated that her work couldn’t be shown for 20 years and made it clear that many of her paintings couldn’t be sold individually. It wasn’t until 1987, the year her work appeared in a Los Angeles County Museum of Art survey of spiritualism and abstraction, that her work began appearing at major institutions; two years later, the P.S. 1 Contemporary Art Center in New York gave her canvases a solo showcase organized by artist R. H. Quaytman. Yet her work remained outside the spotlight for decades—until, in 2013, the Moderna Museet in Stockholm mounted a traveling retrospective that became a surprise hit. Six years later, the Guggenheim Museum in New York stated that its own retrospective, which closed a year ago, had received 600,000 visitors, making it the most widely seen exhibition the museum had ever done.
She may have been among the first artists to take up entirely abstract painting in Europe.
Was af Klint in fact the first painter to take abstraction to the point of non-objectivity? There is a fair amount of scholarly debate on this point, but the Guggenheim show rested on a thesis that her abstractions predate similar ones by Wassily Kandinsky, widely regarded as being among the first to take up non-objective art. Whether or not she truly was the first, she did something new when she began creating pictures composed of curlicuing lines, large swaths of muted colors, and vague animal forms shortly after the turn of the 20th century. But, because her abstract works may not have been shown during her lifetime, her colleagues largely did not take note. (There is disagreement over whether her work was even known to Kandinsky and Piet Mondrian, two artists who died the same year as af Klint and helped promulgate the spread of abstraction in America and Europe.) She was not included in “Cubism and Abstract Art,” a 1936 Museum of Modern Art survey in New York that helped cement the history of modernist abstraction.
Before her abstractions, she had a traditional art education.
While af Klint may be best-known for making abstractions that she claimed were created at the behest of spirits, she started out the standard way: by going to art school. At age 20, af Klint began attending the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Stockholm, one of the most important art schools in Sweden, and got a training in drawing, with an emphasis on portraiture and landscapes. Early on, her art evidenced a boundary-pushing ethos—she drew male models without the small underwear they wore while standing before students, flouting what was expected of female artists at the time. After graduating, af Klint’s landscape paintings were noticed by the local art community—one work even appeared in a show that also contained work by Kandinsky, another famed modernist. (Guggenheim curator David Horowitz, who worked on the museum’s af Klint show, has said the two never met.)
She claimed to be able to commune with spirits.
Starting in 1896, af Klint and four of her female artist friends formed a cadre known as the Friday Group, which was dedicated to the study of Judeo-Christian scripture, followed by séances intended to reach beings that existed beyond the visible world. Eventually, they began calling themselves the Five, and they continued meeting for years. Their séances proved particularly influential for af Klint, whose leap into abstraction was spurred on by the deities who spoke to her. By 1904, she was claiming that she’d been commanded to do artworks by these beings, and working under the sign of one such deity named Amaliel, she undertook a full year of preparation to create what would become some of her most famous works.
Her “Paintings for the Temple” became the works that defined her career.
During her séances held with the Five, af Klint felt that she was being commanded to build a temple to house a number of artworks. “Amaliel offered me a work and I answered immediately Yes,” she wrote in her notebook. “This was the large work, that I was to perform in my life.” And indeed it wound up being her largest realized project: She produced more than 190 paintings total for a series known as “Paintings for the Temple,” with a whopping 111 of them alone being produced between 1907 and 1908. Ultimately, the temple she envisioned these works—a four-story form with a spiral staircase at its center—was never realized.
Developments in science and studies of nature may have informed her abstractions.
Before she began making non-objective art, af Klint worked briefly as a draughtsperson for a veterinary institute, producing detailed drawings of animal surgeries. That interest in the natural world stuck with her throughout her career—she studied Carl Linnaeus’s botanical drawings and even herself drew flowers, carefully mapping out their parts. Some scholars have suggested that such an interest in biology could have impacted her abstractions, which have been compared to natural formations. Late in her life, she gave a cache of her diagrammatic drawings to a library in Dornach, Switzerland, but the collection seems to have disappeared.
She corresponded with famed philosopher Rudolf Steiner.
While af Klint’s modernist colleagues may not have been aware of her art, at least one important philosopher was. In 1908, af Klint reached out to Rudolf Steiner, a leading Austrian philosopher, to ask for his thoughts on her paintings. Steiner, like af Klint, was involved in some of the day’s more out-there forms of spirituality—he pioneered an area of study known as anthrosophy, which focuses on the idea that there is a world beyond this one that informs the human experience. Yet af Klint’s art even eluded Steiner, who told her to hide her work away for 50 years. After his correspondence, she took a short break from art-making, using her time instead to attend to her mother, who was dying. Later on, when Steiner was working on opening an anthrosophy center in Dornach, af Klint approached the philosopher once again, hoping that he might want her mystical paintings for it. He rebuffed her.
Hokusai was, in turns, a romanticist, a classicist and an expressionist; a reverent traditionalist and a pioneering, crowd-pleasing populist. He revolutionized Japanese art by elevating lowly genres, such as landscape and “bird-and-flower pictures,” to high art; and he melded the recessive space of Western perspective with that of traditional Asian art, in which forms farther away are stacked above those closer to the viewer. The supreme master of multiple artistic personalities (30 changes of name; at least 93 changes of address) didn’t, so he tells us, hit his stride until late. On the colophon page of “A Hundred Views of Mount Fuji”, at the age of 75, he confessed that until 70 his drawings were beneath notice. “When I reach 80 I hope to make increasing progress; at 90 I will see the underlying principle of things . . . at 100 I will have achieved divine status as an artist and at 110, every dot and stroke will be alive.”
He only made it to 89 but that bounding animal vitality and leaping line never left him. Perennially hard-up, housed in rough lodgings, “old man crazy to paint” as he signed himself, crouched over the tatami, dressed in a ratty lice-run quilt, helped by his gifted pipe-smoking daughter Eijo, he worked ever harder, faster, deeper. By the age of 80, he had suffered a stroke, the death of two wives, poverty and the intransigence of his grandson, whose debts he was forced to pay. Destitution beckoned. Yet even under these circumstances his vision never fails (nor his eyesight) and his imagination always soared.
Hokusai, who died in 1849, is often thought of as the last genius of the woodblock colour print revolution, a people’s art if ever there was one, which had begun over a century earlier. But his long life stretched all the way back to the middle of the 18th century when the supply of woodblock prints — costing about the price of a double helping of noodles — transformed how art was consumed. It was a genre invented to satisfy the cultural appetite of the biggest city in the world, the million-plus population of Edo (now Tokyo).
Ostensibly the power and the authority of government belonged to the Tokugawa shogun immured in his urban castle. But to keep them out of mischief the nobility were required to stay in Edo, along with their retinues and families. Inevitably, as at Versailles, an emasculated, over-dressed, politically pointless class compensated for its impotence with stupendous conspicuous consumption. That led to the rise of a merchant class to service their ever more extravagant needs. Although the chonin were officially at the bottom of the social hierarchy (in moral status, beneath peasants and artisans), they were the ones who held the moneybags and called the cultural shots and what they wanted above all was entertainment: the courtesans of the Yoshiwara pleasure quarter; the star actors of the kabuki; copiously illustrated ripping yarns and epics. Prints from cherrywood blocks with their runs of hundreds and then of thousands — many in eye-popping colour — catered to this visual greed. Like all brilliant entertainment cultures drenched in feel-good fantasy, it gorged on sex and celebrity, sentimental romance and over-the-top dramatics.
Hokusai played his part in this. For all his exalted sense of vocation and Buddhist devotion, he was, in his own way, an outrageous showman with art as his magic. Summoned to perform before the shogun he laid down a thick band of blue, then pulled a live chicken from a basket which hopped around in the paint. Hokusai declared the result “Autumn leaves at Tatsuta river”. In 1804, before an audience come to see a temple sculpture, Hokusai used a hemp broom and 54 litres of ink to make a colossal, 20-metre-long portrait of the founder of Zen Buddhism.
It is hard to think of any artist more indifferent to some notional line (alien, in any case, to Japan) between high art and pop culture. There was nothing he couldn’t or didn’t do: comic book illustration, travel guides, haikus, paintings of sparrows on grains of rice, designs for netsuke, epic battle scenes and military lives, devotional images of holy men, spooks and tigers, raccoon-dog priests and giant flowers.
His adoptive father was a high-end mirror maker to the shogun’s court and Hokusai began fairly quietly, mastering the traditional arts. Like all conscientiously exhaustive shows this one wants us to look again at the screens and scrolls. But Hokusai’s own judgment was right. An elegant hand is evident but nothing compared with the dynamite to come.
In the 1820s he began experimenting with liberated surges of waves and whirlpools, some of them decorative designs for combs and pipes. The great themes make an early appearance: a spectacular woodblock stained with the Prussian Blue that would become a tonal obsession, fishing skiffs racing down heaving waves, the churning water flooding the whole field of vision. He surfed between fine calculation and free impulse. An enigmatic still life features a halved watermelon, set on no visible means of support, the nakiri knife that cut it resting on a finely translucent piece of paper veiling its surface. Above the fruit, lengths of rind like curtain cords hang from a rope. The whole thing is delicate and somehow violent at the same time, appetising and inaccessible, the visual conceit as tantalising as a Donne sonnet.
In his 80's Hokusai, portrayed himself as not as some benign patriarch but as a a cheerful, witty and mischievous man, still eager to paint. In what might be his last work he found the power to paint a dragon soaring over Mt. Fuji, it's writhing form wreathed in a cloud of smoke. To the end of his days, Hokusai never ran out of images to paint, only out of time.
Lucas Cranach was born in 1472 and took his name from his birthplace, the Franconian town of Kronach, which was part of the bishopric of Bamberg. His father, Hans Maler, was an artist and it is assumed that he was Cranach's first teacher. Around 1501, Cranach traveled to Vienna where he stayed until at least 1504. In addition to several woodcuts which were strongly influenced by the graphic art of Albrecht Dürer, these years saw an outpouring of paintings of extraordinary quality.
Although the exact date of his appointment is not known, by April 1505, Cranach was employed at the court of Friedrich the Wise, Elector of Saxony, at Wittenberg. The Venetian, Jacopo de' Barbari, was also at court from 1503 to 1505 and his art had a continuing influence upon Cranach. During this time Cranach supplied paintings, murals, and decorations for the various ducal residences at Wittenberg, Veste Coburg, Torgau, and elsewhere. The murals no longer survive, but the altarpiece of The Martyrdom of Saint Catherine monogrammed and dated 1506 contains views of the castle of Coburg and was most likely a ducal commission. In 1508, Cranach spent several months in the Netherlands, particularly Antwerp; in his Holy Kindred altarpiece, dated 1509, the women's kerchiefs are clearly Netherlandish and critics have seen the compositional and stylistic influence of Quentin Massys and Jan Gossaert.
Cranach headed a large workshop that included his sons Hans (c. 1513-1537) and Lucas the Younger (1515-1586) as well as numerous apprentices and journeymen. Well in excess of four hundred paintings have been assigned to Cranach and his atelier. The early works are often signed with the monogram LC, but in 1508 Duke Friedrich the Wise granted Cranach a coat-of-arms depicting a serpent with upright bat wings holding a ring in its mouth. The winged serpent probably had humanistic or hieroglyphic significance and could stand for Kronos, the Greek god of time, a pun on the artist's name in Latin as well as German. Cranach used this device of his paintings from 1508 onward. After 1534, however, the serpent's wings are those of a bird and shown folded. The new form is prevalent from 1537 onward and has been connected with the death of the artist's son Hans in 1537. The presence of the serpent with folded wings on paintings dated 1535 and 1536 undermines this somewhat romantic notion but has been seen as an attempt by Cranach to distinguish the work of his sons.
Lucas Cranach is probably the artist most closely associated with the Protestant Reformation. He was a friend of Martin Luther who lived and taught in Wittenberg under the protection of the Electors of Saxony. Cranach and his shop produced great numbers of portraits of Luther, his wife, and other Reformers, as well as depictions of such "Protestant" themes as Christ Blessing the Children and Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery. It should be remembered that the artist also worked for Luther's adversary, Cardinal Albrecht von Brandenburg and in 1525 and 1527 depicted the Cardinal as Saint Jerome in indoor and outdoor settings. The range of subject matter in Cranach's paintings is, in fact, quite wide. In addition to religious works, he produced a variety of mythological and secular subjects, probably intended for humanist or courtly patrons. Cranach was also an excellent portraitist.
For most of his life Cranach lived in Wittenberg in Saxony, and loyally served not only Friedrich the Wise, but his successors Johann the Steadfast and Johann Friedrich the Magnanimous.
Numerous documents testify to Cranach's industry and prosperity. As one of the leading citizens of Wittenberg he owned several houses, as apothecary, a publishing firm that specialized in Reformation literature, and on several occasions served on the city council and as burgomaster. In 1547 when Johann Friedrich was taken prisoner by Charles V, Cranach joined him in exile in Augsburg and Innsbruck, and in 1552 followed him to Weimar where Johann Friedrich re-established the Saxon court. Lucas Cranach died in Weimar in 1553 at the age of eighty-one.
The Cranach family’s genealogy is still traced in Germany, where descendants have included Goethe and Manfred von Richthofen, the Red Baron.
[Hand, John Oliver, with the assistance of Sally E. Mansfield. German Paintings of the Fifteenth through Seventeenth Centuries. The Collections of the National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. Washington, D.C., 1993: 26-27.]