This is a very appropriate post for today. It discusses the architect for the World Trade Center Towers, Minoru Yamasaki. You should check it out – it’s quite interesting. I didn’t realize that another architectural project by Yamasaki was destroyed in 1972 (just two years after the World Trade Center towers were completed). Poor Yamasaki. I hope that none of his other work is destroyed in such a tragic fashion.
If you want to learn how to pronounce the names of Dutch masters correctly, click here. “Peter de Hooch” makes a more gutteral sound than I originally thought.
Earlier this summer I posted about how the Elgin Marbles controversy has been reignited with the opening of the new Acropolis Museum. It seems like the flames keep getting fanned as the summer waxes on. Currently, the Acropolis Museum is showing screenings of a short animated clip by Costa Gavros. This clip shows the history of the Parthenon, which culminates with Lord Elgin’s workers hacking metopes and pediment sculptures off of the facade. Excerpts of Lord Byron’s poem “The Curse of Minerva” is read by a narrator at the end of the clip (Byron wrote this satiric poem in 1811, when Lord Elgin was still removing marbles off of the Parthenon).
You can bet that this screening is a not-so-subtle hint that the Acropolis Museum wants their sculptures back. You can watch the clip here:
I don’t know if this clip has sparked much dialogue between the Greeks and Brits yet, but it has attracted attention and controversy. Recently, the Orthodox Church complained about the depictions of Christians destroying images in the film, and asked that 12 seconds of the film be removed. Later, it was decided that the film would remain unedited.
What do you think of the clip? I think fun to see a visual history of the Parthenon, even if the film agenda is biased.
It will be interesting to see if this Elgin Marbles debate ever ends. I don’t think that either side is backing down or willing to reach a consensus as to where the statues should remain. It’s a never-ending battle. It kind of reminds me of when Jack Sparrow and Barbossa are locked in an eternal sword fight at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Each side keeps on attacking and jabbing, but no progress is made towards ending the fight.
One of the most famous stories surrounding Van Gogh is that the artist cut off his own ear in December of 1888, shortly after a violent argument with his friend and fellow artist Paul Gauguin. Reportedly, Van Gogh then gave the ear to a local prostitute, a woman named Rachel. Due to the popularity of this story, I think that Self Portrait with Bandaged Ear (c. 1889, shown left) is one of the painter’s best-known self portraits.
An interesting (and rather incredulous, in my opinion) theory came out earlier this year about Van Gogh’s ear cutting. You may have caught wind of this new theory – in May it was picked up by all different newspapers and sites. Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans’ new book, In Van Gogh’s Ear: Paul Gauguin and the Pact of Silence argues that Van Gogh did not cut off his own ear, but rather Gauguin was the culprit. Kaufmann and Wildegans believe that Van Gogh and Gauguin were fighting about Rachel (the prostitute). According to this theory, the men agreed to invent the story of self-mutilation so that Gauguin would not get in trouble with the authorities. Gauguin eventually moved to Tahiti and Van Gogh committed suicide in 1890. You can read more about this new theory in these articles by the Daily Mail and BBC News.
Personally, I have a hard time accepting everything put forth by Kauffman and Wildegans. I kind of like the idea that Rachel was the source of the argument, especially since we know that Van Gogh gave Rachel the infamous ear afterwards. However, I’m not sure that Gauguin would have been the one to slice Van Gogh. I agree with what Jonathan Jones wrote to attack this theory. After Gauguin left, he wrote Van Gogh and asked for the Sunflowers painting a parting memorial gift. I don’t think Gauguin would have had the gall to ask for a momento if he had recently cut off his friend’s ear. That doesn’t make sense to me.
Apparently I am behind-the-times in regards to recent prehistoric discoveries. I heard that the world’s oldest instrument was recently discovered in Hohle Fels, Germany – it’s a flute (carved from the bone of a griffon vulture) that is at least 35,000 years old. (You can read more about this flute here and can listen to a replica of the flute played here). I didn’t know, though, that this flute was discovered in sediment next to a female statuette (the discovery of which was announced last May).
This nude, buxom female figurine, the Venus of Hohle Fels, is at least 35,000 years old (shown above). It is one of the oldest known examples of figurative art. The exaggerated emphasis on the female genitalia and breasts are a common feature in prehistoric art, as can be observed in statuettes like the Venus of Willendorf (ca. 28,000-25,000 BC, shown below). It is thought that statuettes like these were used for some type of fertility ritual.
However, there is one major difference between these two statuettes. The Venus of Willendorf has a head full of tight, stylized curls, whereas the Venus of Hohle Fels is headless. Intentionally headless. Instead of a head, there is a carved ring at the top of the figurine, supposedly so that the statuette could be dangled from some type of string. I think it’s especially interesting that the head is missing – this reinforces the fact that these statuettes were not intended to represent specific individuals (which is also the reasoning for why the Venus of Willendorf does not have any facial characteristics).
If you’re interested, you can read more about the Venus of Hohle Fels here.
This blog focuses on making Western art history accessible and interesting to all types of audiences: art historians, students, and anyone else who is curious about art. Alberti’s Window is maintained by Monica Bowen, an art historian and professor.
