The Flagellation of Christ, painted by Piero della Francesca, demonstrates this early Renaissance painter's use of mathematical systems to achieve the illusion of a three dimensional image on a two dimensional plane. Modern day architectural students have re-created Piero's painting in 3-D models to show the accuracy of his measurements, perspective lines and the relative size of his figures in relation to their intended distance from the viewer. Yet this painting has an effect of disequilibrium on the viewer. What elements of this work would you characterize as "realistic?" Does the painting have a focal point, an area where the eye naturally rests?
Friday, April 22, 2011
The Flagellation of Christ, painted by Piero della Francesca, demonstrates this early Renaissance painter's use of mathematical systems to achieve the illusion of a three dimensional image on a two dimensional plane. Modern day architectural students have re-created Piero's painting in 3-D models to show the accuracy of his measurements, perspective lines and the relative size of his figures in relation to their intended distance from the viewer. Yet this painting has an effect of disequilibrium on the viewer. What elements of this work would you characterize as "realistic?" Does the painting have a focal point, an area where the eye naturally rests?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The realistic elements found in Piero's "The flagellation of Christ" are mostly found in the architecture. The mathematical system he used along with shading give a real life effect. Good detail in the columns and roof tiles add to the realistic effect. The focal point also seems to be the architecture. Although it may have been the three men standing foward, they look like a layer that was added later. The painting is titled after Christ, who is in the backround but also seems faint to the grandiose architecture.
ReplyDeleteThe whole painting in itself is realistic. The artist portrayed this time very well as it is showing the beginning of the crucifiction of Christ. The three men off to the side describe the people of the time of His crucifition. People has learned to hate Jesus and therefore did not care what happened to Him, hence His crucifiction. It breaks my heart but the painting is very true in how it displays everything. The painting in itself is the focal point.
ReplyDeleteI think the architecture and scenery are extremely realistic. Even the way the black and white tiles are painted seems real. I also feel like the way the figures are positioned gives the painting a life-like feel. The angles of the bodies of the people that are used shows off the perfect measurements. The scenery, not only where the group is standing inside, but also behind the three in the front, is depicted perfectly. The shadows the artist painted seem so spot-on. I really like the rafters he put on the peach colored building. I feel like my eyes are naturally drawn to this area. I don't know if it because the three in the front are larger or just because of personal preference. Overall, both areas are exceptional in their realistic qualities.
ReplyDeleteThe Flagellation of Christ, painted by Piero della Francesca is very three dementionally focused. There is so much three dementional that one focal point seems impossible. Normally the painter paints the figures toward the focal point, but if one notices, not one of the people in this piece are looking at the other. They are all looking off in the distance. The mathmatics used to create the architecture looks to be the most realistic for that time period. It seems as though most of the focus was placed on the architecture. I precieve some of the figures to be after thoughts and more emphasis was placed on the buildings
ReplyDeleteI think the painting looks realistic. The colors makes it looks natural. The way the people are positioned help make the painting realistic. They are positioned as if they were standing and talking to one another. The size of the poeple show the mathematics he used. I think the focal point in the paiting is the building and the figure in the middle.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think that the painting looks realistic. The background, particularly the arctitecture makes it feel as though the person looking at it, is there. Looking at this picture I can tell that it looks almost 3 dimentional. The way the people are drawn, it also seems as if they are real and are interacting with one another. To me, the focal point seems to be on the 3 men to the right as well as the pillar and the buildings behind it. I believe this is probably due to Francessca putting them much closer and upfront in the painting, rather than further back.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the painting looks realistic between the architecture and the 3d effect. The people in the picture are the focus point. The painting is about the time of christ and the crucifiction of christ.
ReplyDeleteI like this painting alot. I think its very realistic and i use the same mathmatical equations when i sketch buildings. The one thing i don't like about the painting is the group of three guys on the right side of the painting. They look as if the painting was finished and they were photo shopped into the painting. I think the focal point is right next to the brown door on its right side. And i seem to focus on the golden statue on the pillar.
ReplyDeleteWith all things considered, this painting almost everything in the painting is realistic. Now, what throws all that off is the perspective lines. The eyes are naturally drawn to the focal point of Jesus being flogged while much larger and bolder characters stand just to the right in your peripheral vision. Thus creating the effect of disequilibrium.
ReplyDeleteThe painting looks very realistic to me because it almost looks 3dimensional, it almost looks like it was done with the aid of a computer. The focus point of the painting would have to be the people.
ReplyDeleteThe vocal point has to be the three men standing at the fore front of the painting. The exaggeration of their size enhnaces them further, and make them seem important. The painting looks like a juxtoposition of two pictures. He shows realism by allowing the figures in back to remain smaller than the ones' infront. The floor tiles are also expanded and larger in the front creating a perspective.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that Francesca achieved his goal of creating a painting that looked three-dimensional. However, I do think that the characters being displayed look a little awkward because this type of art wasn't popular at the time. While it looks off in some aspects I think that's really just our eyes being tricked because the characters are proportional and scaled to fit the painting and it's surroundings. My eyes immediately focus on the three men in front, but I think I should be focusing on Jesus, but then again that could of been his purpose.
ReplyDelete(Clint McGalliard)The buildings and their proportions to the 5 men on the left look realistic as do all the clothes worn. The focal point I would say is the three men on right especially the one with the black hat these men look big in comparison to the rest of the piece and seem to dominate the space.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Francesca achieved his goal of creating a painting that looked 3 dimensional. I also believe the painting has a focal point on the middle left with the guy chained up and another guy getting ready to beat him. As this is the most proportional size in the whole artwork. Up front, you have people talking that are much bigger than everyone else in the piece. The building and the people are in my opinion perfectly sized to accomodate the depth in the artwork. I believe the whole piece is completely realistic as this is the best piece we have seen with correct proportions of the peoples sizes and building structures changing from bigger to smaller as you look further in.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself a pretty open-minded person and I’m completely for free speech but I think he may be crossing a line here. He claims to be making a statement against “billion-dollar Christ-for-profit industry” but I’m sure Christians everywhere are offended by this photograph. It is all about the shock value. He chose the one thing that he knew would cause an uproar which I realize is not entirely uncommon in the arts but I believe this particular piece of art may be pushing things too far. I’m sure my reaction would be completely different if I didn’t know anything about the background of the piece. Honestly, when I first saw the picture it looked like a simple underwater photograph which I thought was pretty neat but once I learned the background of the piece it ruined it for me. samantha
ReplyDeleteI am not a religious person, so I am not sure what is so wrong about the photograph, but I believe in free speech, whether where to draw the line or if you could even draw a line and still call it free speech is controversial. But that is exactly my point, since the very beginning of human speech there are two sides of an argument, if one decided to ban another, a person is either too immature to acknowledge the reality that there will always be a new one, or so center-ego that one cannot tolerate the existence of an idea simply because he/she does not like it. Do I think if it is art, personally I am not sure, I think the picture is nice looking, but I also think putting something, anything in urine and take a picture is gross. And no, he being very famous and want to be a rock star doesn't change my mind that it is gross. hak t.
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------
In this photograph he is being artistic with trying something new, however, there are people who worship and follow the believes of Christ. Disrespecting someone of such a high value should not be rewarded or made famous for that piece of art. Free Speech doesn't have anything to do with destroying a creation and symbol for Christians. If I were to see this photograph in an art gallery I would ask myself why someone would do something like that? There is a line between being creative and be foolish, Andres Serrano has yet to figure that out. He is using this photograph that is infamous to get him started in a career he wanted as a rock star, now with funding and global exposure from this he will have the funding to do so.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey Z.
I think it's pretty disgusting that an "artist" would put anything is urine and say it's art. He could have shown this work of art in a better way than a jar of urine. I'm not sure what he was trying to say by doing this because I don't think him putting a cross in a jar of urine states freedom of speech. It's just somebody trying to get away with another ridiculous thing and calling it art. If I was in an art gallery and had no information on this I probably would just think hey that's kind of cool but if I knew what was in the jar I probably would not even go to close to it. Alexis S.
ReplyDelete