Subject of this painting?

[Dabomb18359]

The Martyrdom of Saint Matthew. What's the subject?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martyrdom_of_Saint_Matthew_(Caravaggio). Wikipedia's entry. What is the main subject.

I'm not sure, but I think 4 main possibilities are

~The attacker
~Saint Matthew (the guy on the table)
~the light of the painting
~the Chiaroscuro

Leaning towards attacker, but that seems too simple. Any of you know which one?

 

[Fifty]

I'd have to say the attacker based primarily on the lighting

 

[Dabomb18359]

What evidence do you have besides that he's the brightest?

 

[Fifty]

Well isn't the subject supposed to be the figure that your eyes naturally gravitate towards when you look at the painting?

 

[Dabomb18359]

yea you'd think so. But we have gone over some that has "the light" as the subject. This is also a class where it's never that simple.

But I think I'm gonna go with the attacker, unless convinced otherwise.

 

[Sidhe]

The attacker is the subject at least at first, that is pretty clear, but the dynamic of the painting is like a snapshot. Your eyes go first to the attacker but understanding only comes when you consider the other players in the picture. First you see the attacker as you would whether well lit or not, simply because of the prominence and positioning in the picture, but second you look to the object of his attack, but you only really get an understanding when you see the reactions of the other subjects, I'd say for me the position of the Saint himself is meant to be the subject, but only after we understand the underlying emotional context of the act itself. We are drawn finally to the Saint and it his reaction and the others reactions those are based on , it is this that gives meaning to the painting. At least that's my opinion, but art is very subjective

Note who everyone is looking at in the painting. The only figure who is not looking at the saint is the figure far left, and perhaps the guy who cannot see beyond the attacker, it's clever how he is trying to see through the attacker to the object of the painting, and that that is a self portrait of the artist himself.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The Martyrdom of Saint Matthew. What's the subject?

Leaning towards attacker, but that seems too simple. Any of you know which one?

I'd go with St. Matthew. He's the guy dying and has the whitest robes. The secondary focus is the guy doing the killing. Also matthew is the only character not painted with heavy shadows. He is positioned so the light illuminates him pretty fully.

 

[Sidhe]

Do you know I never noticed that, I think that also is the reason why the saint is the subject. The only figure who is without shadow, all sorts of implications there, good observation

 

[Dabomb18359]

hmm. I already started on how the attacker is the subject. Is there a definition of the subject? I know it's subjective, but I never know how the teacher will grade the writing. O well. Thanks for the input!

 

[Sidhe]

Indeed there are no absolutes here, but I suggest you change your mind and make the saint the subject for the reasons given, there seem at least at this early stage to be more reasons to make the saint the subject. Give it a few days if you have time. Also in some paintings their isn't meant to be a single subject, this maybe one. But I personally tend to go for the saint.

 

[Birdjaguar]

hmm. I already started on how the attacker is the subject. Is there a definition of the subject?

The title of a painting is a good indicator of the subject. The focus of the painting could be slightly different though. Think of it as a story. How does the artist tell the story using light, color, position and action? Main characters? Secondary characters? Observers? How will it end?

 

[Xanikk999]

Im definitly not what you call an art freak. I like drawing but i hate observing art.

I mean theres this recent painting where the guy just painted the whole board black and they call that a painting! I would feel sorry for the sucker who bought that!

 

[stormbind]

I wonder what the feather being lowered by an angle is supposed to represent?

The focal point is the primary embodiment or expression of the subject, but the subject is a story filled with meaning and ideas.

 

[Sidhe]

Im definitly not what you call an art freak. I like drawing but i hate observing art.

I mean theres this recent painting where the guy just painted the whole board black and they call that a painting! I would feel sorry for the sucker who bought that!

Indeed there are some great modern art paintings. That painting no doubt is suposed to be critical of modern art: pretentious beyond belief in some areas. I mean anyone can use art as a way to derive a message, painting a canvas requires alot of thought. Unfortunately, reputation counts for alot, look at Jackson pollocks work, he himself said he painted the first picture as art, but he spent a lifetime painting pretty much the same thing and everyone loved it. His derision of the art world for it says it all.

Great artists are dynamic, they paint and create ideas and concepts few had thought of before, they also paint in ways that convey new meaning and insight; this is art, it's about creative insight: Van Gogh for example could sketch drawings that we're perfect and could paint like a photograph, he chose however to paint in a style that looks superficially childish but that's extremely hard to recreate: it's not just the colour it's the depth of colour and the insight it gave of the mind of the artist.

 

[stormbind]

Each generation of van Gogh's work makes me feel more queasy than the former.

He was talented but style changes suggest to me that he was beyond caring about the end result, and preoccupied with the actual acts of painting - a hobbyist.

Edit: Sorry for threadjacking

Yeah, erm... I prefer the thread topic. The picture is clearly designed to provoke thought about it's subject.

 

[Sidhe]

I agree, but being stylisticly bound isn't the way to create good art. I think Van Gogh realised this. And I think it's a message that still hasn't filtered through to the art world yet. Be creative, don't listen to those who would dictate what art is, you create art from subjective thought, not from those who tell you what art is; the more you are bound by what is "art" the less creatively you achieve.

Like all creative expression, the art or ideas of the time should derive you to create your own work, not hold you back; too many people are told what art is, this is not expression it's repression. In art, and art of any kind, the tennant should be: do what though wilt is the whole of the law.

 

[stormbind]

I am not an artist, but I will file that under excuses for rubbish assignment results

With certain paintings, I do feel that the style distracts from the subject rather than emphasise it, which leaves me dissatisfied as a viewer. It's about choosing the right tools or skills for the job.

 

[Insane_Panda]

I agree with Stormbind here. Art cannot simply be "an expression of the artist" - to be great, Art must connect with us and move us, and visual art, if it is to connect with us, must be beautiful. Modernism, however, has taught us that there is nothing to art except your own expression and what you want to do - leading to the great decline in art education for much of the 20th century. No longer did schools teach the foundations and drawing skills required to produce realistic images on canvas or paper, and the standards continued to degrade as the students of the so called "academic" painters of the lately 19th century slowly died off, leaving no connection to the present. Modern art history has also been keen to discredit scores of these so called "academic" artists. (When's the last time you heard of Meissonier, Bougeureau, Waterhouse, Alma-Tadema, or even, to a lesser degree, John Singer Sargent? These men were some of the art giants of their times, Meissonier commanding the highest price for a painting ever during the 19th century, and Bougeureau revered as an artistic great even by Degas and other impressionists, yet up until now we've rarely heard of them, and if we did it was only in a degrading sense)

Art, if it aspires to be great, must move us and connect with us on a fundamental level, and not simply be an expression of one's individuality. That, IMHO, is not art, that's mere self-marketing.

The great masters of the past learned to draw and paint, and THEN ventured into their own styles, they didn't simply throw that education away - as has been the popular trend for a good quarter of the 20th century, a trend which, gladly, is beginning to reverse.

Here is a good site which talks about such issues (admittedly, the creators of the following link can be somewhat overzealous): The Art Renewal Center

 

[Insane_Panda]

look at Jackson pollocks work, he himself said he painted the first picture as art, but he spent a lifetime painting pretty much the same thing and everyone loved it

To say everyone loved it is quite the exaggeration. Modernists loved it, and we were taught to love it. Thats another thing about the Modernism movement which swept America and the world after WWII until the late 70's-80's - it has tried to teach us to love the ugly, tried to convince us that these works which they call art are beautiful, and if we cannot appreciate it's beauty, than we are mere idiots.

Take these two works into example. Art critics and Art history professors throughout America would have you say the first one is mere "academic" work, lacking any true substance, while at the same time they would sing praises for the second peice and if you didn't agree, you'd be an uncultured idiot.


http://www.jssgallery.org/Paintings/Smoke_a.jpg - Fumée d'ambre gris, by John Singer Sargent
http://faculty.evansville.edu/rl29/art105/img/pollock_lavendermist.jpg - Lavender Mist, by Jackson Pollack

However, as you look at them, form an opinion for yourself, and finally, ask yourself this - Who are the real idiots? Those which condemn beauty as a mere academic excercise, or those who praise mediocrity?

 

[Insane_Panda]

Back on topic, I'd say the attacker and St. Michael are the the central subjects of this painting.