Scary Movie Birthday Parties

Gerome The explanatory! Watercolor

As I took a vacation that was outstanding, I used to go to Madrid to see the Thyssen and the temporary exhibition Gerome. I also wanted to have taken advantage to paint a lot and go north to see the exhibition of Enrique Ochoa and greet pass Juankar Cardesín , but you know it seems that the weather is going to last long and then things go taking children to school, diapering and other ... Upon exposure

: awesome. Simply assumed Gerome the culmination of ten centuries of painting technique. And you may like more or less what he paints (expressionists hate to be the opposite of what they represent), but what is undeniable is that the oil dominated like no one has done.
few things surprised me: just used material, in fact only some light is very isolated something more than paint, the rest of the canvas is smooth as an eggshell. Clearly it was an exceptional artist. In almost all the pictures you can see the original pencil drawing, which gives an idea of \u200b\u200bthe transparency of his painting, guess who painted in layers or glazes. He is a master of textures, there is no discernible brushwork in his paintings / tables, except in details of the land on which a release (for example, in the famous painting of Christians and lions , traces of soil are dry brush), but get incredible finishes the way it treats the edges. His sculpture did not seem like no big deal, though there pretty innovated techniques polychrome marble, perhaps the most remarkable a bust of Sarah Bernhardt , but nothing exceptional.

I had brought pencils and a notebook to take some notes, and I could only do that I am showing of "The Bacchante " because they had too much time. I took advantage, yes, to buy the book catalog of the exhibition, superbly edited and with samples of these and other different tables, and a lot of data about their work (see photo). Incidentally, the picture on the cover of the book was there, and was a marvel of color, light and drawing.

After I took to see the Thyssen, who had long since I visited, and I was entranced by a landscaper who did not know anything and has several paintings in the museum, and also with another painter who was also unaware but seemed more irregular. The first is Frederic Edwin Church, American painter of the nineteenth century, and I looked fantastic. His pictures (of varying sizes) have a depth and a life, as he did not see much. In fact, after taking a good time watching one of his landscapes very closely in every detail, I started walking backwards away to take general vision, and I was ahead a couple of Dutch viejetes peeling of me were so dedicated to the Church good .
In any case, the picture that I liked about him was one called "abandoned Barca, very small size (about 30x20cm), which was a marvel. 'm Playing circulating on the Internet, because it has nothing to do with the original. Reproduction is completely desaturated color and looks like a pure land all, while the original is a bath of blue and green all around awesome. I have to do more research on this artist.

The other landscape is Hugh Bolton Jones, with a few pictures also in the museum. I thought that alternated with regular good things, but together we can say that very good too.

What else comment? Well, after seeing Gerome and smooth surfaces, I admired to see the wonder of Sargent filled gobs of paint (" The seller garlic in Venice") and then completely transparent parts where you could see the canvas. I marveled again Rembrandt self-portrait at the various restorations have removed all material applied by the Dutch (yet a marvel of a table). And as always, see Hals was (along with Velazquez ) the first impressionist Egon Schiele was a figure drawing machine (not his views, frankly, I do not say anything at all ), which Holbein was the best portrait of history, and look closely at the box Bramantino the risen Christ, who impresses live: do not look anything like the play that I put, and you can see great details about (like the moon is a face, for example). I also gave a vote of confidence to C. Pissarro , I had never been convinced, but also had its share of disappointment: I do not understand what is the critical Renoir (other than a gift for composition), endorsing that Corot in my humble opinion I had no idea (no color is not a single "clean" in his paintings), change a little the idea of \u200b\u200bmy dear Dürer: as an artist is great, but his pictures are little more than colored drawings,
that Live in earning a lot.

Finally, one day completito art. So I ended up with legs, kicking so much ground. And with what cost me the car could have bought one pictures of Thyssen, sure.