ARTIST-PRINCE

Albrecht Dürer (pronounced [ˈalbʀɛçt ˈdyʀɐ]) (May 21, 1471 – April 6, 1528) was a German painter, printmaker and theorist from Nuremberg. His still-famous works include the Apocalypse woodcuts, Knight, Death, and the Devil (1513), Saint Jerome in his Study (1514) and Melencolia I (1514), which has been the subject of extensive analysis and interpretation.
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Melencolia I
Albrecht Dürer, 1514
Source cs.put.poznan.pl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Knight, Death and the Devil
Copper engraving, 1513-1514
Private collection
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The self-portraits of Duerer that give us the greatest insight into his character and beliefs. The first, drawn when he was just 13, depicts the soft features of a young boy, sketched with great confidence and skill. Duerer was rightly proud of his achievement and years later he added the inscription: 'This I drew, using a mirror; it is my own likeness, in the year 1484, when I was still a child.'
Duerer's first painted self-portrait dates from 1493, when he was 22. In this work, quite possibly painted as a gift for his fiancée, his features are still youthful and he appears bashful. 'Things with me fare as ordained from above', the artist inscribed at the top of the picture.
(From artchive.com)

Self-Portrait at 13
1484
Silverpoint on paper
Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna
From Web Gallery of Art

Self-portrait at 22
1493
Oil on linen, transferred from vellum
Musée du Louvre, Paris
From artchive.com

Duerer's self-portrait of 1498 reveals a transformation. Dressed in elegant clothes, he stands up much straighter and is a highly confident young man. Beside him is a window, overlooking a distant Alpine landscape. The view is a pointed reminder that the well-travelled Duerer had recently returned from Venice - one of the leading centres of the Renaissance. His face is painted with great realism - evidence of his skill. Konrad Celtis, the humanist scholar and friend of Duerer's, once repeated a story based on an anecdote of the Roman writer Pliny, saying that Duerer's faithful dog had barked and wagged its tail when it first saw a newly-completed self-portrait of its master. This, perhaps, is the picture which had once so excited his dog.
(From artchive.com)

Self-Portrait at 26
1498
Oil on panel
Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid
From artchive.com

The final painted self-portrait, dated 1500, is inscribed: 'Thus I, Albrecht Duerer from Nuremburg, painted myself with indelible colours at the age of 28 years.' Although the artist has depicted himself in a Christ-like pose, this was no gesture of blasphemy. It was an acknowledgement that God had made Christ and Man in his own image. Artistic talent therefore ultimately derives from God. After this work, no other painted self-portraits survive, although he is known to have given one to the great Italian artist Raphael (1483-1520).
(From artchive.com)

Self-Portrait at 28
1500
Oil on panel
Alte Pinakothek, Munich
From artchive.com

Detail of the 1500 Self-Portrait
From employees.oneonta.edu

The most celebrated of Dürer's many self-portraits is this painting, made when he was 29 and renowned throughout Europe. Facing strait forward, wearing a brown robe with a dark brown fur collar and ornamental notches on the sleeves, he is delicately grasping the fur of the collar, and he seems to be showing a tiny bit of a white (possibly Fruit-of-the-Loom) T-shirt under the coat.
- A.J. Smith, oinkst@arn.net © 19 Aug 2002, Nicolas Pioch
"Duerer drew several self-portraits. These include an unusually frank one of him in the nude. A few years later he made a small sketch of his body with his hand touching a spot near his spleen (Kunsthalle, Bremen). In what may have been a note to a doctor, or perhaps a comment on his melancholic state, he added the inscription: 'I am pointing to it with my finger: that is where it hurts.'
"Sometimes Duerer depicted himself in a painted altarpiece. On occasions he appears in his role as artist, proudly holding a board with his name and a few details about the work. At other times he gives a figure in an altarpiece his own features, such as the drummer who is mocking the afflicted Job or King Melchior in a Nativity scene. But despite this abundance of different self-portraits, the three paintings which Duerer did when he was in his twenties most affect the way we view the artist. To us he seems eternally youthful, his curly locks of hair cascading over his shoulders."
- Martin Bailey at artchive.com
The Apocalypse, properly Apocalypse with Pictures (Apocalypsis cum Figuris) is a famous series of fifteen woodcuts by Albrecht Dürer of scenes from the Book of Revelation, published in 1498, which rapidly brought him fame across Europe. The series was probably cut on pear-wood blocks and drew on theological advice, particularly from Johannes Pirckheimer, the father of Dürer's friend Willibald Pirckheimer. Work on the series started during Dürer's first trip to Italy (1494-95), and the set was published simultaneously in Latin and German at Nuremberg in 1498, with much of Europe anticipating a possible Last Judgment at 1500. The most famous print is The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (ca. 1497–98)[2], The lay-out of the cycle with the illustrations on the recto and the text on the verso suggests the privileging of the illustrations over the text. The series brought Dürer fame and wealth as well as some freedom from the patronage system, which, in turn, allowed him to choose his own subjects and to devote more time to engraving. In 1511 Dürer published the second edition of Apocalypse.
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The Apocalypse
The Woman of Babylon (AKA Whore of Babylon)
Source kunstunterricht.de
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this scene, the woman or whore of Babylon rides a seven-headed dragon, leaving a trail of destruction behind her, including (on the right) a riverside city in flames.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The third and most famous woodcut from Dürer's series of illustrations for The Apocalypse, the Four Horsemen presents a dramatically distilled version of the passage from the Book of Revelation (6:1–8): "And I saw, and behold, a white horse, and its rider had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer. When he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, 'Come!' And out came another horse, bright red; its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that men should slay one another; and he was given a great sword. When he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, 'Come!' And I saw, and behold, a black horse, and its rider had a balance in his hand; … When he opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, 'Come!' And I saw, and behold, a pale horse, and its rider's name was Death, and Hades followed him; and they were given great power over a fourth of the earth; to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth." Transforming what was a relatively staid and unthreatening image in earlier illustrated Bibles, Dürer injects motion and danger into this climactic moment through his subtle manipulation of the woodcut. The parallel lines across the image establish a basic middle tone against which the artist silhouettes and overlaps the powerful forms of the four horses and riders—from left to right, Death, Famine, War, and Plague (or Pestilence). Their volume and strong diagonal motion enhance the impact of the image, offering an eloquent demonstration of the masterful visual effects Dürer was able to create in this medium.
Dürer trained himself in the difficult art of using the burin to make engravings. It is possible he had begun learning this skill during his early training with his father, as it was also an essential skill of the goldsmith. The first few were relatively unambitious, but by 1496 he was able to produce the masterpiece, the Prodigal Son, which Vasari singled out for praise some decades later, noting its Germanic quality. He was soon producing some spectacular and original images, notably Nemesis (1502) and The Sea Monster (1498) with a highly detailed landscape background and beautiful animals. He made a number of Madonnas, single religious figures, and small scenes with comic peasant figures. Prints are highly portable and these works made Dürer famous throughout the main artistic centres of Europe within a very few years.
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The Prodigal Son
Engraving, 1520
British Museum, London
This image is courtesy of the Art Renewal Center.

Dürer made large numbers of preparatory drawings, especially for his paintings and engravings, and many survive, most famously the Praying Hands (1508 Albertina, Vienna), a study for an apostle in the Heller altarpiece. He also continued to make images in watercolour and bodycolour (usually combined), including a number of exquisite still lifes of meadow sections or animals, including his "Hare" (1502) and the Great Piece of Turf (1503, both also Albertina).
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The Praying Hands
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The most often reproduced and widely known work of the German artist Albrecht Dürer is the gray and white brush drawing on blue-grounded paper, entitled the "Hands of the Apostle," generally known as "The Praying Hands"
This 1508 sketch was a preliminary study for an altarpiece commissioned by Jakob Heller (1460-1522), a wealthy merchant, member of the town council, and mayor of Frankfurt.
Dürer finished the sketch in detail, to be copied exactly in the final painting of the altarpiece. Only the central panel depicting the Assumption and Coronation of the Virgin was executed by Dürer himself. Dürer worked for 13 months on the final painting, determined to make it so sound and beautiful "that it will remain bright and fresh for five hundred years."
Unfortunately, the central panel of the altarpiece was sold a century later by the Dominicans to Duke Maximilian of Bavaria, and in 1729 was destroyed by a fire. A 1614 copy of the Heller alterpiece, done by Jobst Harrich of Nuernberg (c. 1580-1617) has survived. So too, the preliminary sketches that Dürer had prepared for the final painting have survived.
(Magnus Es Tu Domine by Josquin Desprez (c. 1440-1521), The Favorite Composer of Martin Luther at barefootsworld.net)

A Young Hare, 1502
Watercolor and gouache on paper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Detail from "The Large Piece of Turf"
Great Piece of Turf
Albrecht Dürer, 1503
Watercolor, pen and ink
Source she-philosopher.com
Albertina, Vienna
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Great Piece of Turf (German: Das große Rasenstück) is a watercolor painting by Albrecht Dürer. The painting was created at Dürer's workshop in Nuremberg in 1503. It is a study of a seemingly random group of wild plants, including dandelion and greater plantain. The work is considered one of the masterpieces of Dürer's realistic nature studies. The watercolour shows, as its title implies, a large piece of turf, and little else. The various growths can be identified as cock's-foot, creeping bent, smooth meadow-grass, daisy, dandelion, germander speedwell, greater plantain, hound's-tongue and yarrow.
The painting shows a great level of realism in its portrayal of natural objects. Some of the roots have been stripped of earth to be displayed clearly to the spectator. The depiction of roots is something that can also be found in other of Dürer's works. The vegetation comes to an end on the right side of the panel, while on the left it seems to continue on indefinitely. The background is left blank, and on the right can even be seen a clear line where the vegetation ends.
The humanist scholar Conrad Celtes compared Dürer's work to the literary work of the medieval philosopher and scientist Albertus Magnus. Like Magnus, Dürer based his work on the observation of nature. Along with the Wild Hare, the Great Piece of Turf had been called one of the masterpieces of this part of Dürer's work. The composition shows little order and arrangement, the various roots, stems and flowers seem to be in opposition to each other. The apparent chaos, combined with the attentive detail of each individual plant, lends the painting greater realism. Though the composition of vegetation in itself is continuous and seemingly disorganised, the blank background provides a contrast to the chaos, and imposes a sense of order.
Though this work has been highly valued by later art historians, a realistic representation of nature was not a goal in itself for Dürer, but simply a tool for better conveying the sacred messages of his greater works. The Great Piece of Turf was primarily a study that would help him in the development of his art. The results can be seen both in his paintings, and in his highly detailed engravings.
Dürer's work on geometry is called the 'Four Books on Measurement' ('Underweysung der Messung mit dem Zirckel und Richtscheyt'). The first book focuses on linear geometry. Dürer's geometric constructions include helices, conchoids and epicycloids. He also draws on Apollonius, and Johannes Werner's 'Libellus super viginti duobus elementis conicis' of 1522. The second book moves onto two dimensional geometry, i.e. the construction of regular polygons. Here Dürer favours the methods of Ptolemy over Euclid. The third book applies these principles of geometry to architecture, engineering and typography. In architecture Dürer cites Vitruvius but elaborates his own classical designs and columns. In typography, Dürer depicts the geometric construction of the Latin alphabet, relying on Italian precedent. However, his construction of the Gothic alphabet is based upon an entirely different modular system. The fourth book completes the progression of the first and second by moving to three-dimensional forms and the construction of polyhedrons. Here Dürer discusses the five Platonic solids, as well as seven Archimedean semi-regular solids, as well as several of his own invention. In all these, Dürer shows the objects in net. Finally, Dürer discusses the Delian Problem and moves on to the 'construzione legittima', a method of depicting a cube in two dimensions through linear perspective. It was in Bologna that Dürer was taught (possibly by Luca Pacioli or Bramante) the principles of linear perspective, and evidently became familiar with the 'costruzione legittima' in a written description of these principles found only, at this time, in the unpublished treatise of Piero della Francesca. He was also familiar with the 'abbreviated construction' as described by Alberti and the geometrical construction of shadows, a technique of Leonardo da Vinci. Although Dürer made no innovations in these areas, he is notable as the first Northern European to treat matters of visual representation in a scientific way, and with understanding of Euclidean principles. In addition to these geometrical constructions, Dürer discusses in this last book of Underweysung der Messung an assortment of mechanisms for drawing in perspective from models, and provides woodcut illustrations of these methods that have become standard to presentations of perspective.
Dürer's work on human proportions is called the 'Four Books on Human Proportion' ('Vier Bücher von Menschlicher Proportion) of 1528. The first book was mainly composed by 1512/13 and completed by 1523, showing five differently constructed types of both male and female figures, all parts of the body expressed in fractions of the total height. Dürer based these constructions on both Vitruvius and empirical observations of, "two to three hundred living persons," in his own words. The second book includes eight further types, broken down not into fractions but an Albertian system, which Dürer probably learnt from Francesco di Giorgio's 'De harmonica mundi totius' of 1525. In the third book, Dürer gives principles by which the proportions of the figures can be modified, including the mathematical simulation of convex and concave mirrors; here Dürer also deals with human physiognomy. The fourth book is devoted to the theory of movement.
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Appended to the third book, however, is a self contained essay on aesthetics, which Dürer worked on between 1512 and 1528, and it is here that we learn of his theories concerning 'ideal beauty'. Dürer rejected Alberti's concept of an objective beauty, proposing a relativist notion of beauty based on variety. Nonetheless, Dürer still believed that truth was hidden within nature, and that there were rules which ordered beauty, even though he found it difficult to define the criteria for such a code. In 1512/13 his three criteria were function ('Nutz'), naïve approval ('Wohlgefallen') and the happy medium ('Mittelmass'). However, unlike Alberti and Leonardo, Dürer was most troubled by understanding not just the abstract notions of beauty but as to how an artist can create beautiful images. Between 1512 and the final draft in 1528, Dürer's belief developed from an understanding of human creativity as spontaneous or inspired to a concept of 'selective inward synthesis'. In other words, that an artist builds on a wealth of visual experiences in order to imagine beautiful things. Dürer's belief in the abilities of a single artist over inspiration prompted him to assert that "one man may sketch something with his pen on half a sheet of paper in one day, or may cut it into a tiny piece of wood with his little iron, and it turns out to be better and more artistic than another's work at which its author labours with the utmost diligence for a whole year."
(From The Schools Wikipedia sponsored by SOS Children)

Title page of Vier Bücher von menschlicher Proportion
The monogram signature of Albrecht Dürer
"Vier Bücher von menschlicher Proportion"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beginning at least as early as 1512, Durer became portraitist to the rich and famous of his time, including Emperor Maximilian I, c. 1518, and Christian II of Denmark, 1521. Other sitters included Jacob Fugger and other prominent merchants, clergy and government officials. An early chalk and watercolor portrait by Durer, 1494-5, appears to copy Gentile Bellini's profile painting, now lost, of Queen Caterina Cornaro (B-31) following her surrender of her throne in Cyprus and retirement to her native Venice. Maximilian, however, had little in the way of wealth to pay for Dürer's work and he asked the councillors of Nürnberg to exempt Dürer from taxes as compensation. He then asked the councillors to pay Dürer a pension on his behalf, which certainly did not please them. From about 1515 the councillors tried to avoid paying this pension. Dürer met Maximilian personally for the first time in 1518 and, probably from one sitting in Augsburg, painted Maximilian's portrait. The following year Maximilian died and this was the final excuse for the councillors to refuse to make any further payment, saying that the new emperor Charles would have to agree to the pension.
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Emperor Maximilian I
Charcoal on paper, 1518
Private collection
This image is courtesy of the Art Renewal Center

Slavery - 1742 Slave Marries Son of Philadelphia Mayor

.

On January 14 & 16, 2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Tribune reported that New York siblings John, Pamela, and William Pickens placed portraits painted by Philadelphia artist Franklin Street of their ancestors, newlyweds Hiram Charles and Elizabeth Montier on long term loan to the Phildelphia Museum of Art.

These 1841 portraits of the African American couple can be traced back to the city’s first mayor, Humphrey Morrey (c. 1650-1716), appointed by William Penn in 1691. The portraits of Hiram Charles Montier (1818–1905), who was a bootmaker at the time of the painting, and his wife Elizabeth Brown Montier (1820–c. 1858) are owned by their descendents, Mr. and Mrs. William Pickens, III of New York.

In 1742, Mayor Humphrey Morrey's son Richard (1675-1754) married one of the family’s servants, Cremona Satterthwaite (1710-1770) who was 35 years younger than he. The union resulted in five children, and in Cremona Morrey receiving 198 acres of land from Richard in 1746, near Guineatown in Cheltenham Township of Montgomery County just northwest of Philadelphia.

One of their 5 children, Cremona, married a free black man, John Montier. Hiram Chales Montier descended from this union. (The depictions used in this blog entry are copies from reproductions in promotional articles. Contact the Philadelphia Museum of Art for accurate images.)

.

POLITICAL ANIMAL

Geoff Haselhurst, a philosopher of science, in June, 2007 has written, although people like to use the term democracy to describe our own government the truth is that they are not really democratic. The political system is actually a complex mix of ruler (president / prime minister), oligarchy (ministers / senators, academic policy advisers, government bureaucrats and large corporations), and the masses (democracy). There is clearly an interplay of all three groups that ultimately determines policy.
So the ruler has limited powers and is influenced by an oligarchy of advisers who jointly try to manipulate the masses with political spin - but they also have to get votes so they do poll the masses and this affects their policies.
The central problem is that truth and reality are not significant factors in the current system. The solution is not to try and change the system, but to change the knowledge foundations within the existing system such that truth and reality become the central factors in determining government policy.
"When we survey our lives and endeavours, we soon observe that almost the whole of our actions and desires is bound up with the existence of other human beings. We notice that our whole nature resembles that of the social animals. We eat food that others have produced, wear clothes that others have made, live in houses that others have built. The greater part of our knowledge and beliefs has been communicated to us by other people through the medium of a language which others have created. Without language our mental capacities would be poor indeed, comparable to those of the higher animals; we have, therefore, to admit that we owe our principal advantage over the beasts to the fact of living in human society. The individual, if left alone from birth, would remain primitive and beastlike in his thoughts and feelings to a degree that we can hardly conceive." (Albert Einstein, 1934)
It is also clear that truth and reality are critical foundations for humans to think and act wisely. disagreement comes from our (mis)conceptions of truth and reality.
How can humans live together? The world has grown smaller and more humans are forced to live together. The problem is larger, more acute and more complicated than it was when ancient philosophers first looked at it. How in particular can a top-dog and an under-dog be made to live together?
(Utopia: On Politics / Economics Founded on Truth and Reality by Geoff Haselhurst - Karene Howie at spaceandmotion)
By nature man is a political animal. Hence man have a desire for life together, even when they have no need to seek each other’s help. Nevertheless, common interest too is a factor in bringing them together, in so far as it contributes to the good life of each. The good life is indeed their chief end, both communally and individually; but they form and continue to maintain a political association for the sake of life itself. Perhaps we may say that there is an element of good even in mere living, provided that life is not excessively beset with troubles. Certainly most men, in their desire to keep alive, are prepared to face a great deal of suffering, as if finding in life itself a certain well-being and a natural sweetness.
For the real difference between humans and other animals is that humans alone have perception of good and evil, just and unjust, etc. It is the sharing of a common view in these matters that makes a household and a state.
It is clear that those constitutions which aim at the common good are right, as being in accord with absolute justice; while those which aim only at the good of the rulers are wrong.
Thus it is thought that justice is equality; and so it is, but not for all persons, only for those that are equal. Inequality also is thought to be just; and so it is, but not for all, only for the unequal. We make bad mistakes if we neglect this ‘for whom’ when we are deciding what is just. The reason is that we are making judgements about ourselves, and people are generally bad judges where their own interests are involved.
So we must lay it down that the association which is a state exists not for the purpose of living together but for the sake of noble actions.
Then, when a large number of men of similar virtue became available, people no longer tolerated one-man rule but looked for something communal, and set up a constitution. But the good men did not remain good: they began to make money out of that which was the common property of all. And to some such development we may plausibly ascribe the origin of oligarchies, since men made wealth a thing of honour. The next change was to tyrannies, and from tyrannies to democracy. For the struggle to get rich at all costs tended to reduce numbers, and so increased the power of the multitude, who rose up and formed democracies. And now that there has been a further increase in the size of states, one might say that it is hard to avoid having a democratic constitution.
Desire is like a wild beast, and anger perverts rulers and the very best of men. Hence law is intelligence without appetition.
Democracy exists whenever those who are free and are not well-off, being in the majority, are in sovereign control of government, an oligarchy when control lies with the rich and better-born, these being few.
(Aristotle Politics by Geoff Haselhurst - Karene at spaceandmotion.com)
"A big part of our problem is that politicians are elected for only a few years at a time. In that time, they have to provide benefits that can be seen quickly, like construction jobs, new factories and shopping malls. Since social and environmental problems take years to be revealed and just as long to be averted, different politicians will be around to take the credit or the blame when they become critical. So people elected into office find themselves naturally concentrating on short-term fixes, like helping a pulp-and-paper company open a new mill. They know they will be long gone by the time the effects of deforestation or dioxin contamination from that mill are felt by the public." (David Suzuki, Naked Ape to Superspecies)
"Any government is in itself an evil in so far as it carries within it the tendency to deteriorate into tyranny. However, except for a small number of anarchists, every one of us is convinced that civilized society cannot exist without a government. In a healthy nation there is a kind of dynamic balance between the will of the people and the government, which prevents its degeneration into tyranny. It is obvious that the danger of such deterioration is more acute in a country in which the government has authority not only over the armed forces but also over all the channels of education and information as well as over the economic existence of every single citizen." (Albert Einstein, 1947)
"Our purpose in founding our state was not to promote the happiness of a single class, but, so far as possible, of the whole community. Our idea was that we were most likely to justice in such a community, and so be able to decide the question we are trying to answer. We are therefore at the moment trying to construct what we think is a happy community by securing the happiness not of a select minority, but of a whole." (Plato)
"If you get, in public affairs, men who are so morally impoverished that they have nothing they can contribute themselves, but who hope to snatch some compensation for their own inadequacy from a political career, there can never be good government. They start fighting for power, and the consequent internal and domestic conflicts ruin both them and society.
True indeed.
Is there any other life except that of true philosophy which looks down on political power?
None that I know of.
And yet the only men to get power should be men who do not love it, otherwise we shall have rivals' quarrels.
That is certain.
Who else, then, are we to compel to undertake the responsibilities of ruling, if it is not to be those who know most about good government and who yet value other things more highly than politics and its rewards?
There is no one else"
(Plato)
(By Geoff Haselhurst - Karene Howie at spaceandmotion)

The Journal of Madam Knight 1704 or 1824?

.


In 1704, Sarah Kemble Knight recorded her October to March horseback journey from Boston to New York. She noted meeting with a variety of other women along the way.

"...after we left the Swamp, we come to Billinges, where I was to Lodg. My Guide dismounted and very Complasantly help't me down and shewd the door, signing to me wth his hand to Go in.; which I Gladly did—But had not gone many steps into...the Room, ere I was Interogated by a young Lady I understood afterwards was the Eldest daughter of the family, with these, or words to this purpose, Law for mee—what in the world brings You here at this time a night ?—I never see a woman on the Rode so Dreadfull late, in all the days of my versall life. Who are You ? Where are You going? I'm scar'd out of my witts—with much now of the same Kind. I stood aghast, Prepareing to reply, when in comes my Guide—to him Madam turn'd, Roareing out: Lawfull heart, John, is it You?—how de do! Where in the world are you going with this woman? Who is she? John made no Ansr... she then turned agin to mee and fell anew into her silly questions, without asking me to sitt down.

I told her she treated me very Rudely, and I did not think it my duty to answer her unmannerly Questions. But to get ridd of them, I told her I come there to have the post's company with me to-morrow on my Journey, &c. Miss star'd awhile, drew a chair, bid me sitt, And then run up stairs and putts on two or three rings, (or else I had not seen them before) and returning, sett herself just before me, showing the way to Reding, that I might see her Ornaments, perhaps to gain the more respect. But her Granmam's new Rung sow, had it appeared, would affected me as much....

And about two, afternoon. Arrived at the Post's second stage...Here, having called for something to eat, ye woman bro't in a Twisted thing like a cable, but something whiter; and laying it on the board, tugg'd for life to bring it into a capacity to spread; wich having with great pains accomplished, shee serv'd in a dish of Pork and Cabage. I suppose the remains of Dinner. The sause was of a deep Purple, wich I tho't was boil'd in her dye Kettle; the bread was Indian, and every thing on the Table service Agreeable to these. I, being hungry, gott a little down; but my stomach as soon cloy'd, and what cabbage I swallowed serv'd me for a Cudd the whole day after...

The family were the old man, his wife and two Children ; all and every part being the picture of poverty. Notwithstanding both the Hutt and its Inhabitance were very clean and tydee: to the crossing the Old Proverb, that bare walls make giddy hows-wifes...
We call'd at an Inn...Landlady come in, with her hair about her ears, and hands at full pay scratching. She told us she had some mutton wich shee would broil, wich I was glad to hear; But I supose forgot to wash her scratchers; in a little time shee brot it in; but it being pickled, and my Guide said it smelt strong of head sause, we left it, and pd sixpence a piece for our Dinners, wich was only smell...

Their Diversions in this part of the Country are on Lecture days and Training days mostly : on the former there is Riding from town to town...And on training dayes The Youth divert themselves by Shooting at the Target...

They generally marry very young: the males oftener as I am told under twentie than above; they generally make public weddings...Just before Joyning hands the Bridegroom quitts the place, who is soon followed by the Bridesmen, and as it were, dragg'd back to duty...


And they Generally lived very well and comfortably in their famelies. But too Indulgent (especially ye farmers) to their slaves: sufering too great familiarity from them, permitting ym to sit at Table and eat with them, (as they say to save time.) and into the dish goes the black hoof as freely as the white hand...
There are every where in the Towns as I passed, a Number of Indians the Natives...Govern'd by Lawr's of their own making;— they marry many wives and at pleasure put them away, and on the ye least dislike or fickle humor, on either side, saying stand away to one another is a sufficient Divorce...

They give the title of merchant to every trader... Pay is Grain, Pork, Beef, &c. at the prices sett by the General Court that Year; mony is pieces of Eight, Ryalls, or Boston or Bay shillings (as they call them,) or Good hard money, as sometimes silver coin is termed by them; also Wampom, viz' Indian beads wch serves for change...
They are generaly very plain in their dress, throuout all ye Colony, as I saw, and follow one another in their modes; that You may know where they belong, especially the women, meet them where you will...

The English go very fasheonable in their dress. But the Dutch, especially the middling sort, differ from our women, in their habitt go loose, weare French muches wich are like a Capp and a head band in one, leaving their ears bare, which are sett out wth Jewells of a large size and many in number. And their fingers hoep't with Rings, some with large stones in them of many Coullers as were their pendants in their ears, which You should see very old women wear as well as Young...

Their Diversions in the Winter is Riding Sleys about three or four Miles out of Town, where they have Houses of entertainment at a place called the Bowery, and some go to friends Houses who handsomely treat them.Mr. Burroughs carry'd his spouse and Daughter and myself out to one Madame Dowes, a Gentlewoman that lived at a farm House, who gave us a handsome Entertainment of five or six Dishes and choice Beer and metheglin, Cyder, &c. all which she said was the produce of her farm. I believe we mett...slays that day—they fly with great swiftness and some are so furious that they'le turn out of the path for none except a Loaclen Cart. Nor do they spare for any diversion the place affords, and sociable to a degree, they'r Tables being as free to their Naybours as to themselves...

...being overtaken by a great storm of wind and snow which set full in our faces about dark, we were very uneasy. But meeting one Gardner who lived in a Cottage thereabout, offered us his fire to set by, having but one poor Bedd, and his wife not well, &c. or he would go to a House with us, where he thought we might be better accommodated —thither we went, But a surly old shee Creature, not worthy the name of woman, who would hardly let us go into her Door, though the weather was so stormy none but shee would have turnd out a Dogg...

Being got to Milford, it being late in the night...I was invited to Lodg at Mrs. a very kind and civill Gentlewoman, by whom I was handsomely and kindly entertained till the next night. The people here go very plain in their apparel (more plain than I had observed in the towns I had passed) and seem to be very grave and serious. They told me there was a singing Quaker lived there, or at least had a strong inclination to be so, His Spouse not at all affected that way. Some of the singing Crew come there one day to visit him, who being then abroad, they sat down (to the woman's no small vexation) Humming and singing and groneing after their conjuring way—Says the woman are you singing quakers? Yea says They—Then take my squalling Brat of a child here and sing to it says she for I have almost split my throat singing to him and cant get the Rogue to sleep. They took this as a great Indignity, and mediately departed. Shaking the dust from their Heels left the good woman and her Child among the number of the wicked...

March 3d wee got safe home to Boston, where I found my aged and tender mother and my Dear and only Child in good health with open arms redy to receive me..."


Sarah Kemble Knight’s (1666-1727) journal of her horseback journey from Boston to New York in 1704-05 was published in 1825, by Theodore Dwight (1797-1866), one of the Hartford Wits. An actual diary of the journey has never been found nor have any other manuscripts by Madam Knight been discovered. Well, I would certainly feel this was all well & good, if I could see a manuscript. At least we can be absolutely certain that it was written before 1825.
.

THE IMPRESSIONIST PAR EXCELLENCE

Claude Monet
Date 1899
Author Gaspar-Félix Tournachon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claude Monet (French pronounced [klod mɔnɛ]) also known as Oscar-Claude Monet or Claude Oscar Monet (14 November 1840 – 5 December 1926) was a founder of French impressionist painting, and the most consistent and prolific practitioner of the movement's philosophy of expressing one's perceptions before nature, especially as applied to plein-air landscape painting. The term Impressionism is derived from the title of his painting Impression, Sunrise.
On the first of April 1851, Monet entered the Le Havre secondary school of the arts. He first became known locally for his charcoal caricatures, which he would sell for ten to twenty francs. Monet also undertook his first drawing lessons from Jacques-François Ochard, a former student of Jacques-Louis David. On the beaches of Normandy in about 1856/1857 he met fellow artist Eugène Boudin who became his mentor and taught him to use oil paints. Boudin taught Monet "en plein air" (outdoor) techniques for painting.
He was 16 years old when he left school, and went to live with his widowed childless aunt, Marie-Jeanne Lecadre.
When Monet traveled to Paris to visit The Louvre, he witnessed painters copying from the old masters. Monet, having brought his paints and other tools with him, would instead go and sit by a window and paint what he saw. Monet was in Paris for several years and met several painters who would become friends and fellow impressionists. One of those friends was Édouard Manet.
Disillusioned with the traditional art taught at universities, in 1862 Monet became a student of Charles Gleyre in Paris, where he met Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Frédéric Bazille, and Alfred Sisley. Together they shared new approaches to art, painting the effects of light en plein air with broken color and rapid brushstrokes, in what later came to be known as Impressionism.
Monet's Camille or The Woman in the Green Dress (La Femme à la Robe Verte), painted in 1866, brought him recognition, and was one of many works featuring his future wife, Camille Doncieux; she was the model for the figures in The Woman in the Garden of the following year, as well as for On the Bank of the Seine, Bennecourt, 1868.

The women in the Garden
Oil on canvas, 1866-1867
Musée d’Orsay, Paris
This image is courtesy of the Art Renewal Center

The Beach At Sainte-Adresse
Oil on canvas, 1867
Private collection
This image is courtesy of the Art Renewal Center

In 1867-68, Claude Monet made a lot of marinas around the harbour of Le Havre especially at Sainte-Adresse beach.
In this one the way Claude MONET painted the sky reminds of the influence Eugène Boudin had in his first years.
(© A. Cauderlier, 38 route de Giverny 27200 Vernon France)
Monet lived from December 1871 to 1878 at Argenteuil, a village on the Seine near Paris, and here he painted some of his best known works. In 1874, he briefly returned to Holland.
In 1872 (or 1873), he painted Impression, Sunrise (Impression: soleil levant) depicting a Le Havre landscape. It hung in the first Impressionist exhibition in 1874 and is now displayed in the Musée Marmottan Monet, Paris. From the painting's title, art critic Louis Leroy coined the term "Impressionism", which he intended as disparagement but which the Impressionists appropriated for themselves.

Impression, Sunrise
Oil on canvas, 1873
Private collection
This image is courtesy of the Art Renewal Center

The Luncheon (Monet's Garden At Argenteuil)
Oil on canvas, 1873
Private collection
This image is courtesy of the Art Renewal Center

"The Luncheon" reflects the family happiness at Argenteuil. A quiet summer afternoon, Jean Monet is sitting on the ground and playing, Camille appears in the background.

At the age of thirty-two, Madame Monet died on 5 September 1879 of tuberculosis; Monet painted her on her death bed. After several difficult months following the death of Camille on 5 September 1879, a grief-stricken Monet (resolving never to be mired in poverty again) began in earnest to create some of his best paintings of the 19th century. During the early 1880s Monet painted several groups of landscapes and seascapes in what he considered to be campaigns to document the French countryside. His extensive campaigns evolved into his series' paintings.
While Monet continued to live in the house in Vétheuil; Alice Hoschedé helped Monet to raise his two sons, Jean and Michel, by taking them to Paris to live alongside her own six children. They were Blanche, Germaine, Suzanne, Marthe, Jean-Pierre, and Jacques. In the spring of 1880 Alice Hoschedé and all the children left Paris and rejoined Monet still living in the house in Vétheuil. In 1881 all of them moved to Poissy which Monet hated. From the doorway of the little train between Vernon and Gasny he discovered Giverny.
In April 1883 they moved to Vernon, then to a house in Giverny, Eure, in Upper Normandy, where he planted a large garden where he painted for much of the rest of his life. Following the death of her estranged husband, Alice Hoschedé married Claude Monet in 1892.
Monet and his large family rented a house and 2 acres (8,100 m2) from a local landowner. The house was situated near the main road between the towns of Vernon and Gasny at Giverny. There was a barn that doubled as a painting studio, orchards and a small garden. The house was close enough to the local schools for the children to attend and the surrounding landscape offered an endless array of suitable motifs for Monet's work. The family worked and built up the gardens and Monet's fortunes began to change for the better as his dealer Paul Durand-Ruel had increasing success in selling his paintings. By November 1890 Monet was prosperous enough to buy the house, the surrounding buildings and the land for his gardens. During the 1890s Monet built a greenhouse and a second studio, a spacious building well lit with skylights.
Beginning in the 1880s and 1890s, through the end of his life in 1926, Monet worked on "series" paintings, in which a subject was depicted in varying light and weather conditions. His first series exhibited as such was of Haystacks, painted from different points of view and at different times of the day. Fifteen of the paintings were exhibited at the Galerie Durand-Ruel in 1891.
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Wheatstacks (End of Summer)
1890-91, Oil on canvas
Art Institute of Chicago
Source: Scanned from Stuckey, Charles F.,
The Art Institute of Chicago and Thames and Hudson.
Author Original uploader TonyTheTiger at en.wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wheatstacks
1890-91, Oil on canvas
Art Institute of Chicago
Source: Scanned from Stuckey, Charles F.,
The Art Institute of Chicago and Thames and Hudson.
Author Original uploader TonyTheTiger at en.wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wheatstacks (Sunset, Snow Effect)
1890-91, Oil on canvas
Art Institute of Chicago
Source: Scanned from Stuckey, Charles F.,
The Art Institute of Chicago and Thames and Hudson.
Author Original uploader TonyTheTiger at en.wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wheatstack (Snow Effect, Overcast day)
(Meule, effet de neige, temps couvert)
1890-91, Oil on canvas
Art Institute of Chicago
Source: Scanned from Stuckey, Charles F.,
The Art Institute of Chicago and Thames and Hudson.
Author Original uploader TonyTheTiger at en.wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wheatstack
1890-91, Oil on canvas
Art Institute of Chicago
Source: Scanned from Stuckey, Charles F.,
The Art Institute of Chicago and Thames and Hudson
Author Original uploader TonyTheTiger at en.wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wheatstack (Sun in the Mist)
1891, Oil on canvas
Minneapolis Institute of Arts
Source: Scanned from Stuckey, Charles F.,
The Art Institute of Chicago and Thames and Hudson.
Author Original uploader TonyTheTiger at en.wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the Monet Haystacks series, started in the late summer of 1890 and completed the following spring, Monet entered on a new period in his work. For the next thirty years he was able to concentrate almost exclusively on a few subjects: Haystacks, Poplars, Rouen Cathedral, the Houses of Parliament, the Waterlilies. What interested him henceforth was the expression of transient appearances – the motif itself would be unvarying and viewed always from the same angle, only the light would change, depending on the season, the weather and the time of day.
His method was to work on several canvases at once, devoting perhaps no more than a few minutes at a time to any one of them. It was necessary to work swiftly to capture the ‘moment’ before it dissolved. In this he was greatly assisted by his stepdaughter Blanche, who would slide the canvases into position on his easel.
On 7 October, in full flight, he wrote to Gustave Geffroy: “…the further I get, the more I see how much work it will need to convey what I am searching for: ‘instantaneity’, and above all the external ‘envelope’, the same light spread everywhere…”
The series of 25 Monet Haystacks canvases was completed by the end of the winter of 1891. Some 15 of these were exhibited by Durand-Ruel in May. For the first time there was no hostile reaction, only unanimous praise. Gustave Geffory’s preface to the exhibition catalogue is a string of hyperboles, but it also contains a sensitive account of these ‘haystacks in an empty field’.
The Monet Haystacks series had a marked influence on the younger painters, particularly the Fauves, Derain and Vlaminck. For Kandinsky, seeing examples in Moscow, and later in Munich, was one of the decisive experiences of his life. He wrote in his memoirs: “What suddenly became clear to me was the unsuspected power of the palette, which I had not understood before and which surpassed my wildest dreams”.
The success of the Haystacks series solved Monet’s problems at a stroke: most of the Haystacks canvases were sold for as much as 1,000 francs, and Monet’s prices in general began to rise steeply. This financial coup enabled him to buy outright the house and grounds at Giverny and to start constructing a waterlily pond.
(From impressionist-art-gallery.com)
He later produced several series of paintings including: Rouen Cathedral, Poplars, the Parliament, Mornings on the Seine, and the Water Lilies that were painted on his property at Giverny.

The Four Trees
Four Poplars,1891
Banks of the Epte River near Giverny)
Metropolitan Museum of Art
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poplars (Autumn)
1891
Oil on canvas
Private Collection
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poplars (Autumn)
1891
Philadelphia Museum of Art
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poplars (Wind effect)
Year 1891
Oil on canvas
Private Collection
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trouée de soleil dans le brouillard
Houses of Parliament, London
Sun Breaking Through the Fog, 1904
Musée d'Orsay, Paris
Source The Yorck Project: 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Monet used color with an increasing freedom in these later years. London as he saw it again at the beginning of the present century suggested chromatic richnesses far beyond any he had contemplated in 1871. This view of the Houses of Parliament in 1904 with the sun coming through fog departed from the Whistlerian silhouette of thirty-three years before to picture densities of purple and blue with a contrast of gold that already forecast André Derain's fauve paintings of the city.

Houses of Parliament, London
Palace of Fine-Arts, Lille, France
1904
Author Remi Jouan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of these paintings were done on identical sizes of canvas, from the same viewpoint overlooking the Thames from Monet's window. This series is the supreme expression of his conception of an "envelope" of interactive colored light. By providing a static subject under different light conditions, the series paintings illustrate how the changing "envelope" transforms what we perceive. This final painting of the series, however, differs from the first seven. It is titled without the additional clause used in the others to describe the momentary condition of the envelope, such as "...Sun Breaking Through the Fog" or "...Effect of Sunlight". In the earlier works, the buildings and river are inert, passively affected by the envelope of light. Here they take center stage with fantastically dynamic form. The spiraling brushstrokes of the tower sweep it upward majestically, seeming to draw contrails of the envelope into its vortex. The river, too, takes on a more aggressive aspect, the highlighted wavecrests creating a groundswell at the base of the tower that contributes to the rising effect. As the tower stretches toward the bright sky at the very pinnacle of the canvas, Monet succeeds masterfully in expressing a dazzling sense of supreme aspiration.
(© 19 Sep 2002, Nicolas Pioch at ibiblio.org)
Monet was exceptionally fond of painting controlled nature: his own gardens in Giverny, with its water lilies, pond, and bridge. He also painted up and down the banks of the Seine, producing paintings such as Break-up of the ice on the Seine.
He wrote daily instructions to his gardening staff, precise designs and layouts for plantings, and invoices for his floral purchases and his collection of botany books. As Monet's wealth grew, his garden evolved. He remained its architect, even after he hired seven gardeners. He built a greenhouse and a second studio, a spacious building, well lit with skylights.
Between 1883 and 1908, Monet traveled to the Mediterranean, where he painted landmarks, landscapes, and seascapes, such as Bordighera. He painted an important series of paintings in Venice, Italy, and in London he painted two important series—views of Parliament and views of Charing Cross Bridge. His second wife Alice died in 1911 and his oldest son Jean, who had married Alice's daughter Blanche, Monet's particular favourite, died in 1914. After his wife died, Blanche looked after and cared for him. It was during this time that Monet began to develop the first signs of cataracts.
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
From 1914 to 1915 Monet decided to build a large studio at Giverny: 23m x 12m, at the top of the garden, on the left side. He wanted to make his dream come truth: to create The Water Lilies (Decorations des Nympheas).
He started this series of paintings in 1916 and had painted them till 1926. Monet worked on twelve large canvases. In 1918 he donated them to France, following the signing of the Armistice. These paintings were installed in an architectural space designed specifically for them – two oval rooms - at the museum of the Orangerie in Paris.

Water Lilies, 1920-1926
Musée de l'Orangerie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sea-Roses (Yellow Nirwana), 1920
National Gallery London
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Water-Lilies, 1914-1917
Toledo Museum of Art, Ohio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Water Lily Pond, 1908
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Water Lilies, 1906, Art Institute of Chicago
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Water Lilies (or Nympheas) is a series of approximately 250 oil paintings by French Impressionist Claude Monet (1840-1926). The paintings depict Monet's flower garden at Giverny and were the main focus of Monet's artistic production during the last thirty years of his life. Many of the works were painted as Monet suffered from cataracts.

The Waterlily Pond
Oil on canvas
National Gallery, London
This image is courtesy of the Art Renewal Center

Monet's 'Le bassin aux nympheas' (Water Lily Pond), measuring about two metres in width, is one of Monet's most important works from his series in 1904 of water lilies, pond and bridge, painted at his property at Giverny. With a strong interest in controlled nature Monet became infatuated with light and reflection on water and this particular painting was one of four large scaled paintings signed 1919 that used the water's surface like a mirror, reflecting clouds and foliage.
During this time Monet suffered cataracts and a lot of his earlier water lily paintings had an orange tint which was characteristic of cataract sufferers. After treatment Monet spent time actually re-painting some of these earlier works introducing much deeper bluer colours to the water.
Unlike most of Monet's late work, which remained unfinished in the studio when he died, Le Bassin Aux Nympheas was released by the artist during his lifetime. The remaining three have all found different homes over the years with one being kept in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, another in a private collection and the third unfortunately being cut in two before the Second World War.
'Le bassin aux nympheas' was initially expected to sell for up to £18million to £24million but stunned the art world yesterday when it sold for more than twice that amount by an anonymous buyer at Christies' in London.
(Article courtesy of The Laura Henry Collection - 25th June 200
In 1923 Monet was nearly blind and had an operation from cataract in one eye. His sight improved after that.
At the beginning of the year 1926, in February Monet had still painted, but he had suffered from lung cancer. On December 5, 1926 Monet died at Giverny at the age of 86. He was buried in a simple ceremony in his family grave in Giverny church cemetery. His friend Georges Clemenceau attended the ceremony.
(Copyright © 2006-2009 Alvilim)

Welcome to Claude Monet's
From giverny.org/monet/welcome.htm

A PERFECTED UNION

Senex Magister at xanga.com has written, "This is a speech that was delivered in Philadelphia by Barack Obama in response to the controversy created by remarks made by Reverend Wright.When I first heard this speech, I looked at my wife and said that WE NEED TO ELECT THIS MAN PRESIDENT.It goes beyond an African American Politician challenging our society to confront its perceived attitudes about race, but more importantly how can we make American Society a PERFECTED UNION where even with our disagreements we are in reality "WE THE PEOPLE".We must remind ourselves what it means to live in an egalitarian democracy and not a totalitarian society of an elite that attempts to use misinformation to delude and misguide us from the hope of 1776."
Excerpts of that speech:
"Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The declaration of independence they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.
words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.
On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
The remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
I can no more disown Reverend Wright than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
Race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
For all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
A similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins."
(From Senex Magister at xanga.com )

AN gruh, zhahn oh GOOST daw mee NEEK

Image courtesy of Don Kurtz

After an early academic training in the Toulouse academy Ingres, Jean Auguste Dominique (1780-1867) went to Paris in 1796 and was a fellow student of Gros in David's studio. He won the Prix de Rome in 1801, but owing to the state of France's economy he was not awarded the usual stay in Rome until 1807. In the interval he produced his first portraits. These fall into two catagories: portraits of himself and his friends, conceived in a Romantic spirit (Gilibert, Musée Ingres, Montauban, 1805), and portraits of well-to-do clients which are characterized by purity of line and enamel-like coloring (Mlle Rivière, Louvre, Paris, 1805). These early portraits are notable for their calligraphic line and expressive contour, which had a sensuous beauty of its own beyond its function to contain and delineate form. It was a feature that formed the essential basis of Ingres's painting throughout his life.
Ingres is a puzzling artist and his career is full of contradictions. Yet more than most artists he was obsessed by a restricted number of themes and returned to the same subject again and again over a long period of years. He was a bourgeois with the limitations of a bourgeois mentality, but as Baudelaire remarked, his finest works `are the product of a deeply sensuous nature'. The central contradiction of his career is that although he was held up as the guardian of Classical rules and precepts, it is his personal obsessions and mannerisms that make him such a great artist. His technique as a painter was academically unimpeachable--he said paint should be as smooth `as the skin of an onion'--but he was often attacked for the expressive distortions of his draughtsmanship; critics said, for example, that the abnormally long back of La Grande Odalisque (Louvre, 1814) had three extra vertebrae. Unfortunately the influence of Ingres was mainly seen in those shortcomings and weaknesses which have come to be regarded as the hallmark of inferior academic work. He had scores of pupils, but Chassériau was the only one to attain distinction. As a great calligraphic genius his true successors are Degas and Picasso.
© 19 Aug 2002, Nicolas Pioch

The Forestier Family
1806
© R.M.N.
© 2005-2008 Musée du Louvre

This is a family portrait of Ingres's fiancée, Julie Forestier, with her parents and uncle. It was drawn by the artist shortly before his departure for Rome in the autumn of 1806. The geographical separation of the couple led to the abandonment of the marriage plans and Julie Forestier never married.
The five persons represented here are as follows, from left to right: Clotilde, the Forestier family's maid; Julie's uncle, Joseph Armand Sallé; Julie's mother, Marie-Jeanne-Julie née Sallé; her only daughter, Julie, then engaged to the painter Ingres; and finally, on the right, Julie's father, Charles-Pierre-Michel Forestier, attorney at the Parlement de Paris. The details in the portrait are anecdotal (the piano showing the girl's gift for music) or symbolic (a dog, representing fidelity).
This is a genuine romantic memento. Ingres drew the family portrait when he had to leave his fiancée Julie and spend four years at the French Academy in Rome (the Villa Medici) after winning the Prix de Rome in 1801. Once he had left, the pair decided to separate. Ingres married Madeleine Chapelle, a young milliner, in 1813. Julie Forestier did not marry and her misadventure even inspired her to write a short novel, Emma ou la fiancée. After they had broken up, she returned the drawing to Ingres, who made one (or two) copies
Ingres produced a very large number of graphic works (more than 5,000 drawings) and the drawn portraits of many of his contemporaries (nearly 500) are regarded as being among the finest. The Louvre has some thirty graphite portraits in which the artist captures the features of the model and also the character. That of the Forestier Family is one of the best known on account of both the skill in the placing of the different figures and the delicacy of the drawing.
(© 2005-2008 Musée du Louvre)
For years at Salon exhibitions, Parisian critics condemned Ingres's paintings as "Gothic" because his classicism was different from that of his teacher, Jacques-Louis David.
Ingres won the Prix de Rome in 1801. A lifelong admirer of both Raphael and ancient art, he adored Italy. While residing in Rome, he often lived hand-to-mouth, surviving by drawing graceful pencil portraits of wealthy French people on holiday. He returned to Paris in 1824 to find his Vow of Louis XIII applauded by critics. Compared with the free brushwork and brilliant color of newcomer Eugéne Delacroix, Ingres's elegant paintings suddenly seemed more palatable.
From that point on, Ingres was generally honored by both the government and the artistic establishment. He was awarded commissions and assumed authority in the Académie des Beaux-Arts. Eventually, his sincere belief in the supremacy of line over color and his own polished style mutated into dictatorship. "Touch," said Ingres, "is the device of charlatans to show their skill with the brush."
(© J. Paul Getty Trust)

Mademoiselle Caroline Rivière
Year 1805
Dimensions Deutsch: 100 × 70 cm
Current location Deutsch: Musée du Louvre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The painting is the third of three portraits of the Rivière family the artist painted that year. Caroline's father, Philbert Rivière, was a successful court official under Napoleon's empire, and sought to commemorate himself, his wife and his daughter through a commission with the then young and rising artist. Although Ingres favoured painting subject matter drawn from history or Greek legend, at this early stage in his career he earned his living mainly through commissions from wealthy patrons. The family lived outside Paris, at St. Germain-en-Laye, and Mademoiselle Caroline Rivière would have been between 13 and 15 at the time she was portrayed; according to Ingres the "ravishing daughter".
The younger Rivière's portrait describes slightly-built and youthful femininity and hints at a hesitant openness. The painting is rendered in bright hues and set against a serene white–blue early spring landscape, the freshness of which was intended to reflect the youth of the sitter. The background is not deeply portrayed; the perspective is shallow and rises—according to the art historian Robert Rosenblum—in "flattened horizontal tiers against which the figure seems crisply silhouetted as if in low relief."
Typical of portraits by Ingres of the time, Caroline Rivière is drawn with a disregard for anatomical accuracy. Her neck is overly elongated, and the bridge of her nose extends too far. Rivière is portrayed with a stiffness and awkwardness typical of her age, and shown in a manner which was intended to emphasise a sense of the nascent purity and simplicity of her youth. Yet the painting is generally seen in the light of pathos and tragedy, as the sitter died within a year of the work being completed.
It was, along with Ingres's two other portrayals of the family, exhibited in the 1806 Salon, but was poorly received for its perceived "Gothicness" (due to its precision of line and enamel finish) and its similarity to Jan van Eyck and other artists of Early Netherlandish painting (in French "Les Primitifs Flamands"). Further, the manner in which the whiteness of the sitter's dress contrasts with the curve of her boa offended some viewers. Today the painting is typically seen as a peak in Ingres's artistic career, and in this work Ingres introduces an emotional link between figurative and landscape art, and the watery scape behind the sitter evokes rhythms with many of the visual themes presented in the rich imagery of the foreground.
In 2003, the art critic Jonathan Jones remarked of the painting:
The sexuality Ingres usually reserved for harem fantasies slips over into the real and respectable world in this charged portrait. His obviously intense visual relationship with his subject and his contentment to look, with a clinical waxy fetishism, at Mademoiselle Rivière's full lips, bared neck, long gloves and spectacularly serpentine boa, lend this picture drama."
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Redirected from Mademoiselle Caroline Rivière (Ingres))

Images of (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1999)
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

On arrival in Rome, he devoted himself to history paintings. He determined to remain in Italy until he could be sure of a triumphant return to Paris. As a result of Napoleon's defeat in 1815, Ingres was cut off from potential patrons, and he turned to again to portraiture to support himself. Although he disliked the drudgery of such commissioned work, Ingres drew many beautiful and intimate pencil portraits of his friends, and this style of portrait became popular with paying customers.
In 1816, Ingres was commissioned by George Forbes, a Scottish tourist, to draw him with his fiancée Mary Hay (1790-1877). Ingres developed a composition appropriate to a betrothal, but Forbes was called away from Rome before the drawing could be completed. Mary's brother, Sir John Hay (1788-1838), stood in for Forbes, but Ingres refused to alter the composition. The couple wear matching flowers, and Mary's engagement ring is heavily drawn. Mary and George were married in 1819, but Forbes was displeased with the drawing, and had it reproduced photographically with the figure of his brother-in-law removed.
(J. Rowlands, Master drawings and watercolou, London, The British Museum Press, 1984)
Ingres was always a classicist, loyal to a tradition that, in French eyes, connected modern art with that of Greece, Rome and the Italian Renaissance. Ingres's The Apotheosis of Homer (1827) depicts the continuity of French classicism: Poussin is among worthies paying homage to the ancient poet. Ingres won the Prix de Rome in 1801 but, in a war-torn Europe, it wasn't until 1806 that he could take up this travel prize. He settled in Rome until 1824.
(© Guardian News and Media Limited 2009)

The Apotheosis of Homer
Oil on canvas, 1827
Louvre
This image is courtesy of the Art Renewal Center

Ingres was regarded as an effective teacher and was beloved by his students. The best known of them is Théodore Chassériau, who studied with him from 1830, as a precocious eleven-year-old, until Ingres closed his studio in 1834 to return to Rome. Ingres considered Chassériau his truest disciple—even predicting, according to an early biographer, that he would be "the Napoleon of painting." By the time Chassériau visited Ingres in Rome in 1840, however, the younger artist's growing allegiance to the romantic style of Delacroix was apparent, leading Ingres to disown his favorite student, of whom he never again spoke favorably. No other artist who studied under Ingres succeeded in establishing a strong identity; among the most notable of them were Jean-Hippolyte Flandrin, Henri Lehmann, and Eugène Emmanuel Amaury-Duval.
Ingres's influence on later generations of artists has been considerable. His most significant heir was Degas, who studied under Louis Lamothe, a minor disciple of Ingres. In the twentieth century, Picasso and Matisse were among those who acknowledged a debt to the great classicist; Matisse described him as the first painter "to use pure colors, outlining them without distorting them."
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Louis-François Bertin
Oil on canvas, 1832
45 5/8 x 37 3/8 inches (116 x 95 cm)
Musée du Louvre, Paris


View the feature

In his portrait by Ingres, Monsieur Bertin, the founder of the newspaper Journal des Débats, embodies the thriving bourgeoisie of the 1830s. It took Ingres a lot of time and effort to find a pose which would convey a sense of power adequate to the press magnate.
He was at the height of his career when he commissioned this work from the artist. In 1799, he had purchased a medium-circulation newspaper, Le Journal des Débats, which became one of the major periodicals of the time. It was chiefly devoted to political matters, but also dealt with the arts. The Journal des Débats favored constitutional monarchy and the Orleanist party, and was therefore an opposition paper during the reigns of Napoleon Bonaparte and Charles X (indeed it was banned by the former). After Louis-Philippe’s accession to the throne, however, it found itself aligned with the government.
So in 1832, Bertin was a man of influence in France, in charge of a newspaper which represented the interests and opinions of the newly triumphant business bourgeoisie. Bertin was a wealthy bourgeois, owner of a successful paper, a mansion in Paris, and a château in Bièvres; but he was also a man of action and conviction, who played a central role in the political life of his time.
(© 2005-2008 Musée du Louvre)
"If I had to select just one artist whose work is the most fruitful and instructive to the historian of dress for the period covering the first half of the Nineteenth Century, it would be Ingres. From that time, when the fashion spotlight was on the dress and appearance of women rather than on men Ingres has left an unrivalled and detailed record of the female image. Such images are primarily conjured up through portraiture, which is obviously I superb source of information on clothing. In his famous essay 'The Painter of Modern Life', Baudelaire remarks how portraits
are clothed in the costume of their own period. They are perfectly harmonious because everything - from costume and coiffure down to gesture, glance and smile (for each age has a deportment, a glance and a smile of its own) - everything, I say, combines to form a completely viable whole.
"When we look at portraits by Ingres, we 'situate ourselves' (in John Berger's phrase apropos painted landscapes but even more relevant to portraiture) within the frame, we imagine ourselves wearing the garments the artist depicts with such intensity of detail, and we wonder how they would feel on our bodies; we conjure up the sensation of touch when we look at the fabrics. Ingres's heightened depiction of the visible and the tactile becomes our experience, too. When one looks in detail at the surviving costume of the period, it is astonishing to see not just how accurate Ingres is in terms of the cut and construction of garments and the depiction of fabrics and accessories in his work, but also how alive he is to the nuances and the sense of clothing. Not only will Ingres paint the brilliance of a fine cashmere shawl, for example, where the colours flow like all oriental imagery, but he will also lead the eye to such tiny but telling details as the way in which the twisted fringe on the border of the fine wool gets caught up on the fabric of a dress. He will - even in a drawing - delight in the draping of the finest muslin gowns, and focus on the way in which this gossamer material is pleated at the neck or at the breast.
(From artchive.com)

Napoleon I on His Imperial Throne
Oil on canvas, 1806
101 7/8 x 63 3/4 inches (259 x 162 cm)
Musee de L'Armee, Paris

French artists were encouraged to glorify Napoleon I (1769–1821) after he was crowned emperor on December 2, 1804. Ingres, then in his mid-twenties and a student of Jacques-Louis David, rose to the challenge. Rather than relying upon Baroque traditions of royal portraiture, Ingres turned to archaic modes of imperial representation. He depicted the emperor seated on a magnificent throne, holding a scepter (topped by a statuette of the medieval emperor Charlemagne), an ivory hand of justice (which had purportedly belonged to Charlemagne), and Charlemagne's own sword. These and other historical items were used by Napoleon to link himself with great French leaders of the past. It is not known whether Ingres received a commission for this work or painted it on speculation, but it was purchased by the French legislature (Corps Législatif) just prior to its appearance at the Salon of 1806.
(Copyright © 2000–2009 The Metropolitan Museum of Art)

Princesse Albert de Broglie,
née Joséphine-Eléonore-Marie-Pauline
de Galard de Brassac de Béarn
Oil on canvas, 1853
47 3/4 x 35 5/8 inches (121.3 x 90.8 cm)
Metropolitan Museum of Art, Manhattan

Although portraiture was a genre he came to dislike, Ingres depicted many of the leading personalities of his day. This painting of Joséphine Eléonore Marie Pauline de Galard de Brassacede Béarn, princesse de Broglie, is his last commissioned portrait of a female sitter. A member of the most cultivated circles of the Second Empire, the princess was renowned for her great beauty as well as her reserve, both qualities captured in this portrait. Ingres' facility for brilliantly transcribing the material quality of objects is seen in the rich satin and lace of the sitter's gown, the silk damask upholstery, and the richly embroidered evening scarf draped across the chair. Also rendered in exquisite detail are her sumptuous jewels, which include the fashionable antique-inspired pendant around her neck.
The princesse de Broglie died of consumption at the age of thirty-five. Her bereaved husband kept this portrait behind draperies in perpetual tribute to her memory. It remained in the family until shortly before it was acquired by Robert Lehman and retains the original, ornately carved frame that Ingres himself selected.
(From Metropolitan Museum of Art, Manhattan)
Ingres, a pupil of David's, never let his brushwork show. As a Neo-classicist, he consciously kept emotion out of his works. He preferred painting historical narratives and felt that portraits were somehow beneath him. Yet, his portraits were his best work and that by which we remember him.
(©2009 About.com, a part of The New York Times Company)
Ingres was interred in the Pere Lachaise Cemetery in Paris, France on 14 January, 1867.