I was surprised by our visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I have gone to this museum and looked at these same paintings many times. However, I never truly understood them. I never realized that when you walk between different paintings, there is an evolution of painting styles and changes in beliefs that contribute to the differences between paintings. Before this tour, I did not know that there was so much that could be learned from comparing two paintings.
One thing that I thought was interesting during the tour of the Old Master paintings at the Met was the progression of the image of the Madonna and Child. I have gone to many different museums and seen a lot of pictures of the Madonna and Child. I always noticed the differences in the paintings. However, it never occurred to me that these differences occurred due to an evolution of painting style and beliefs in society. For example, I remember that in the first Madonna and Child that we saw, the face of Jesus was not that of a baby. Instead, it was the face of an adult. Also, the figures looked two-dimensional and there was no indication between the mother and the child. This made the figures look unrealistic. However, the next Madonna and Child painting contained more colors and it showed a more developed relationship between mother and child. Also, this image introduced the idea of a divider between the image and the viewer. The third Madonna and Child painting had many different colors, baby jesus looked like a real baby, and the relationship between the mother and child was obvious. This image also contained a similar divider as the one found in the second Madonna and Child. I thought it was interesting that this kind of progression in painting could be tied to the progression of beliefs. For example, I never realized that most icons in the past were used to represent symbols and ideals. As a result, they did not show life as it really was, but instead they showed it in an idealistic way, such as giving baby jesus the face of an adult. However, as people beliefs changed, they began to view religion as something everyone could relate to. As a result, the painting became more realistic and a barrier was introduced to acknowledge the viewer of the painting. I also thought that it was interesting that putting a divider on a painting can actually be used to include the viewer. I like the third Madonna and Child paintings more than the first two that we saw. The bright colors of the third painting and the portrayal of biblical characters in a human way made the painting more interesting to view and much easier to understand than the first two paintings.
Another thing that I thought was interesting was the evolution of the types of materials that artists used. I thought it was amazing that in the past so many paintings were commonly painted on wood. In today’s world, this seems highly impractical. In addition, I never knew that the development of oil painting allowed artists to paint over their mistakes. I liked this fact because as I was walking around the museum after the tour, I passed by a painting that demonstrated this idea. The painting said that the artist painted over a boy trying to hold back a dog. When I stepped a little farther away, and looked closer at the painting, I realized that I could see the outline of the boy. It is exciting for me to discover things like this in a painting because it makes me feel more connected to the painter. Finding mistakes like this, lets the viewer see a little bit of the thinking process of the artist and how they created a certain painting.
One of my favorite paintings that we saw was The Last Judgment by Jan Van Eyck. I enjoyed looking at this painting because this summer, I visited Italy and saw The Last Judgment by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. I remember that while looking at Michelangelo’s painting I was amazed by its size and could not imagine how much work had gone into painting such a large work of art with so much detail. However, Jan Van Eyck’s work, although considerably smaller, did not have any less of an effect on me. In fact, I thought it was even more amazing that such a large and complicated painting could have been painted in such a small size. I was surprised that this small painting was not lacking any detail. For example, the scene where people are in hell has so much detail, that it is almost hard to look at because of its graphic nature.
