(Untitled)

Jun 21, 2005 17:12


Read more... )

Leave a comment

blackbirdwhite June 22 2005, 13:30:14 UTC
oh, posh, had i the time/money, i would kill to see berlin. and all that talk of haute design... well, that makes even me jealous. do send photos!

And (here we go tatiana, why do i get so caught up in these sorts of conversations?) being myself pretty rusty with the notion of chiaroscuro, it being a bit too indoctrunal for class, but knowing i could picture examples of it.. well, I was pretty sure chiaroscuro did not mean drawing lights ontop of dark, as this is a standard painting principal since forever. Nearly all of painters worked with a ground-- this is why brown paper is preferable-- with the exception of watercolors.

But to be sure, I looked it up on the grand 'ole internet:
An element in art, chiaroscuro (Italian for lightdark) is defined as a very high contrast between light and dark.

The term is best used with reference to a technique which finds its best expressions in xylography and in china (ink) drawing (especially for prints). The technique requires a skilled knowledge of the perspective, the physical effects of light on surfaces, the shadows. Chiaroscuro defines objects without a contouring line, but only by the contrast between the colours of the object and of the background.

Despite a frequent confusion, chiaroscuro technique is different from German camaieu, in which the graphical effect is prevalent on the plastic effect (obtained with chiaroscuro to recall basrelief and painting "feeling"), and which more often uses coloured paper.

Chiaroscuro is most often found in Baroque art, and was developed by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1573-1610).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaroscuro"

This sounds about right to me-- more about contrast. I am not sure who developed it, really, and I am weary of internet information.

well, crap, now i'll have to ask our painting TA...
(five minutes later)
Well, according to that discussion, its simply the play of light across form so as to make 2d seem 3d, etc, etc,
and refers to the shift from the middle age thinking of reducing images to the iconic, to the renaissance ideal of realism.

oookay, that was far too long of an answer. But these things, you know, I cannot stop talking.

xoxo
t.

Reply

un_reveur June 22 2005, 17:12:38 UTC
this, my dear tati, is why it is best to leave questions of art theory to you and your colleagues. i deal exclusively in music theory. as very much as i like pontificating on everything else. and not as though i know all that much about music theory, either.

but i know there's something about Da Vinci and Chiaroscuro. And it has since become much more metaphorical and applies to music as well and so on and so forth. As the Deutsch say, «égal.»

Reply

blackbirdwhite June 22 2005, 21:16:03 UTC
oh dear, i hope you don't find me too obnoxious. i didn't mean to be, though ehhh might have been... zut.

let it be known that the first mention of ANYTHING musical would leave me staring blankly, without a scrap of knowledge or insight.

xo
t.

Reply

un_reveur June 23 2005, 10:30:22 UTC
if i were to find you obnoxious than just think of what you would have to find me!

Reply

blackbirdwhite June 23 2005, 16:02:54 UTC
niet!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up