This
work is dark and effective at communicating the agony and the brutal
manner of Christ’s execution. The over-enlargement of the figure’s heads
emphasize the emotions of the subjects and by size comparison their emaciated condition.
Particular energy was spent dramatizing the violence that was inflicted to His
hands, feet and side, which again emphasize the horror of his death. |
While some forms are heavily adjusted in size in favor of the message, this work is generally realistic. The emotional impact is too strong for this to be considered a work of even, calming energy. It is basically perceptual in nature, but the message is clearly its primary purpose. In addition, it captures the moment of anguish Mary feels when her son’s suffering has ended. His form nearly overpowers hers, but the unearthly love of a mother that cannot be returned is clearly felt.
A sort of hieratic scale is used: Recognizable figurative shapes are dramatically adjusted in size and thickness carry the mood of this work. Viewed straight-on, an interlocking tonal arrangement is present, remarkably controlled, not overpowering the content. Time is not a primary consideration, but the artist has eternally extended the sense of loss Mary is experiencing.
I am making the argument that this work approaches unbalanced but remains asymmetric. This work is carried by content; this content is off-center, radiating from the figures’ expressions, the Virgin’s emotions (head and heart), counterbalanced by Christ’s wounds. The result, at least to me, is an impression that the work is threatening to tip to observer’s left. From a purely formal perspective, the shapes forming the body and base are substantial enough to keep this work visually stable.
Elemental use is such that values and shapes are well-defined, but not forcefully so, and this stark treatment is consistent with the work’s mood. Shapes are “fleshy” or artificial, and both carry a sense of fragility. Masculine and feminine contrasts are present. Overall, this work’s sense of harmony is calibrated exactly where it needs be: Present, but noticeably lower than typical.
Like the statue-portrait of Senusret III, attention is placed on the emotional suffering and sense of loss tormenting Mary, and reflecting on the torture inflicted on her Son. In terms of physical space, this places eye movement in the area shared by their hieratically-adjusted heads. In-the-round development is present, but the work is clearly intended to be viewed straight-on.
Clearly this work provides the extreme opposite emotional expression of other Christ and Mary combinations, such as Virgin of Vladimir. Through my studies of history I have found it’s much easier to identify times that were not “troubled” as opposed to those that were, so to say the period this work was crafted from was tumultuous isn’t saying much. My understanding is that creations of the time contrasted more than typical because of the fragile nature of life, and the seemingly unlimited ways it could be lost.
While some forms are heavily adjusted in size in favor of the message, this work is generally realistic. The emotional impact is too strong for this to be considered a work of even, calming energy. It is basically perceptual in nature, but the message is clearly its primary purpose. In addition, it captures the moment of anguish Mary feels when her son’s suffering has ended. His form nearly overpowers hers, but the unearthly love of a mother that cannot be returned is clearly felt.
A sort of hieratic scale is used: Recognizable figurative shapes are dramatically adjusted in size and thickness carry the mood of this work. Viewed straight-on, an interlocking tonal arrangement is present, remarkably controlled, not overpowering the content. Time is not a primary consideration, but the artist has eternally extended the sense of loss Mary is experiencing.
I am making the argument that this work approaches unbalanced but remains asymmetric. This work is carried by content; this content is off-center, radiating from the figures’ expressions, the Virgin’s emotions (head and heart), counterbalanced by Christ’s wounds. The result, at least to me, is an impression that the work is threatening to tip to observer’s left. From a purely formal perspective, the shapes forming the body and base are substantial enough to keep this work visually stable.
Elemental use is such that values and shapes are well-defined, but not forcefully so, and this stark treatment is consistent with the work’s mood. Shapes are “fleshy” or artificial, and both carry a sense of fragility. Masculine and feminine contrasts are present. Overall, this work’s sense of harmony is calibrated exactly where it needs be: Present, but noticeably lower than typical.
Like the statue-portrait of Senusret III, attention is placed on the emotional suffering and sense of loss tormenting Mary, and reflecting on the torture inflicted on her Son. In terms of physical space, this places eye movement in the area shared by their hieratically-adjusted heads. In-the-round development is present, but the work is clearly intended to be viewed straight-on.
Clearly this work provides the extreme opposite emotional expression of other Christ and Mary combinations, such as Virgin of Vladimir. Through my studies of history I have found it’s much easier to identify times that were not “troubled” as opposed to those that were, so to say the period this work was crafted from was tumultuous isn’t saying much. My understanding is that creations of the time contrasted more than typical because of the fragile nature of life, and the seemingly unlimited ways it could be lost.
No comments:
Post a Comment