sandr037

Being an architect, and having spent an inordinate amount of time being a professional purveyor of 3 dimensional illusions, the following post might seem odd… I just stumbled across the drawing above in my files. It is from a July 2012 Wall Street Journal review of a Gustav Klimt exhibit at the Getty Center. It fascinated me then, and does now; but why? It is simple to the point of being crude. The face is nearly invisible, and the black clothing dominates without informing. It isn’t particularly beautiful, or balanced, or even entertaining. But it still speaks to me. The answer, on reflection, is the creative tension between the flat surface and the three dimensional illusion. Yes, there isn’t much 3 dimension to go with here, but between the shape of the black dress and hat, and the suggested face, it is a complete likeness. Klimt was quite capable of creating a three dimensional illusion on paper or canvas, but he was fascinated by the flat, graphic qualities of church icons. The c...

I’ve been very busy with personal business, but I had the chance to visit the Brooklyn Museum and the Metropolitan Museum in New York City. I concentrated on European and American paintings from 1800 to the advent of modernism (about 1925). Many paintings were simply competent, such as View of the Colosseum and the Arch of Constantine from the Palatine by Charles Remond (above), but others were magic. Because the paintings were so accessible, the artist’s technique was quite visible. Details, brushstrokes, and the effects of impasto were observable – things that can’t be easily seen in even good photos. For instance, this portrait from the Brooklyn Museum shows where the warm underpainting was left visible, creating a lively dialog between the hair and the background, an effect recalling the coloring of the face itself. The most fascinating result of seeing these paintings in person is the interaction of reality and abstraction. Across the room a painting may look much like a photogr...