Alberti’s Window

It was recently mentioned in a post by Lee Rosenbaum that this painting, Young Woman Seated at a Virginal, may actually not be painted by Vermeer. Benjamin Binstock argues in a new book, Vermeer’s Family Secrets, that this painting (along with six others) may have been painted by Vermeer’s eldest daughter. Walter Leidtke, the curator of Dutch Baroque art at the Met, obviously disagrees with this theory, having recently included this painting in his new monograph on Vermeer. However, the label for this painting at the Met does suggest that the yellow shawl may have been painted by someone else.

I wonder what kind of controversy will be sparked by Binstock’s new book! Some of the debates have already started. Rosenbaum cites one reviewer in Art Newspaper that called Binstock’s theory a “wild assumption based on limited information.” Since I’m not a connoisseur of Vermeer, I can’t give an opinion myself. I also have not read Binstock’s book yet. It does seem, though, that Dr. Binstock has credible expertise; he received a PhD in Northern Baroque and Renaissance art from Columbia, and currently teaches at Columbia and New York University.

Ah, revisionist theories. It looks like the art community is about to get riled up again…

There is an interesting article in today’s edition of the New York Times that discusses the downside of Rembrandt’s career during hard economic times in the Dutch Republic. As the writer of this article mentioned, it’s interesting to examine these paintings right now, since we are also in the midst of an economic crisis.

This is a reproduction of Rembrandt’s Woman with a Pink (early 1660s) that is discussed near the end of the article. I particularly enjoyed the writer’s thoughts regarding this painting. I also didn’t know that X-rays indicate that a child was originally included in the composition, but then painted out. This painting is one of the writer’s favorite works at the Met, and I can see why. It’s quite stunning.

If you like Richard Serra’s work, then you might think this is interesting.

Iconography is a branch of art history that deals with the study of images and the relationship of images and text. The practice of iconography involves interpreting, describing, and identifying images. In Western art, ancient mythological texts and the Bible are two sources often used to identify the symbolic or cultural signification of an image.

Personally, I think that iconography is a fun practice that helps one to find “hidden meanings” in a painting. The decoding of hidden meanings through iconography (and iconology, which is essentially the study of symbols in art) was one of the first things that attracted me to art history.

Today in the London Times an interesting article was published that discusses some of the hidden meanings in paintings from the National Gallery. The explanations for different items in paintings are concise and fun to read – although I can’t help but add that items in paintings can contain several iconographic (or iconological) references. Like in many disciplines, everything in art history cannot be interpreted in a concrete fashion!

If you’re curious to look at the five paintings discussed in the article, here are some reproductions:

Bronzino, Allegory with Venus and Cupid, c. 1540

Caravaggio, Supper at Emmaus, 1601

Anonymous, The Wilton Diptych, 1395-1399

Jan van Eyck, The Arnolfini Portrait, 1434

William Hogarth, Marriage à la Mode series, plate II (“The Tête à Tête”), c. 1743

I just read an article in the New York Times about a new Jeff Koons exhibition…at Versailles.

At first, I immediately thought I wouldn’t even like the thought of this exhibition. After all, a Baroque scholar would want to have Versailles shown in its pure, untainted decadence. And if I was there, I probably would get upset seeing Koons’ kitschy, flashy work all over the palace.

But I think that this exhibition poses a really interesting idea. Koons’ work is a commentary on mass-production, pop culture, kitsch, and consumption. For example, Koons’ sculpture Michael Jackson and Bubbles is created in the style of cheap porcelains that can be bought at the dollar store.

I am especially intrigued by this idea of consumption in regards to Versailles. In this sense, wouldn’t Koons’ works seem appropriate at Versailles palace, which is the epitome of European consumption and decadence? These kitsch sculptures even bring up associations of sweat shops, “MADE IN CHINA,” and cheap labor – all which can tie into the oppression of the common people that took place in seventeenth and eighteenth century France.

Of course, I’m pretty sure that Louis XIV would never have owned anything kitsch. The decor in his home would have been a little bit more, um, pricey.

If you read this article, make sure to check out the photo gallery too. What do people think?

*J made an interesting comparison tonight: both Koons’ art and Versailles are quintessential examples of things that are “over the top” – Koons in his ridiculously large balloon animals or stuffed animals cum garden sculptures, and Versailles in, well, every way imaginable.