Large Arch

Prompt: In Large Arch, how is the Historical information discussed?

The artist Henry Moore cites his inspiration was the monument of Stonehenge in England, as well as the shoulders of a man. The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) owns a smaller version of the bronze arch by Moore titled Large Torso, which dates from 1962 to 1963, before the creation of the Columbus Large Arch or the Cleo Rogers Memorial Library.I.M. Pei had the idea of a large work of art to sit in the Fifth Street public plaza that would pull together the space between his newly built Cleo Rogers Memorial Library, the Irwin Gardens by Henry A. Phillips (just east of the library) and the First Christian Church by Eliel Saarinen (across the street).  Pei wanted a sculpture that could be touched and walked through. After seeing Henry Moore's Large Torso at the MoMA and watching his daughter run and play within the small arch, Pei asked Henry Moore to make an arch twice as big, with enough for two adults to walk through side-by-side comfortably. Moore agreed so long as it was not so large or positioned in such a way that an automobile could pass through it. Moore also gave over control of the positioning of the arch within the plaza, trusting Pei and J. Irwin Miller to consider how visitors may approach as well as the position of the sun.In September 1970, Xenia Irwin Miller, co-commissioner of Large Arch, presented a 24-minute color film on the work of Henry Moore which was produced by the Encyclopædia Britannica Education corporation.  Miller also presented her visit with Moore at his studio in England in July 1970.Large Arch was sandcast in 40-50 segments in Berlin, West Germany by the Herman Noack Foundry. Each casting is about a quarter of an inch thick. It was shipped to New Orleans, barged up the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers to New Albany, Indiana and was then driven north to Columbus, Indiana on a flat bed trailer on Interstate 65 to Columbus where it was delivered on a truck and assembled as a single piece.  Before its installation, a temporary plywood sculpture was erected in late 1970 to give an idea of the size of the sculpture.The dedication ceremony of the library did not occur until the installation of Moore's sculpture on May 16, 1971, two years after the library building was complete.   I.M. Pei was in attendance and gave a short speech emphasizing the use of the plaza where Large Arch is placed as a public space that emphasizes the importance of the nearby buildings.  Also present at the dedication were Carl Weinhardt, director of the Indianapolis Museum of Art at the time, Kenneth D. B. Carruthers, who worked with I.M. Pei on the library's design, and Robert Indiana, artist. Henry Moore did not attend.Even before its placement, Large Arch was considered a controversial choice by the surrounding community. It has been given colloquial names like"Dentist's Dream," "Large Hip Joint" and "The Big Bone." The arch is now featured on tours provided by the Columbus Area Visitor Center, and before he died, Moore considered it to be one of his most important works. It was also featured prominently in the book Henry Moore in America by Harry J. Seldis.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Indiana

Complex patina and surface texture of ''Large Arch''

File:Surface detail of Large Arch by Henry Moore.jpg

First Christian Church (Columbus, Indiana)

List of public art in Bartholomew County, Indiana

Category:Public art in Columbus, Indiana

File:Detail of Large Arch, signature of artist Henry Moore.jpg

Moore's signature at the base of ''Large Arch'' and the foundry mark "H. Noack" in Berlin


Large Arch

Prompt: In the context of Large Arch, explain the Location history and the Historical information.

Large Arch in Columbus, Indiana, was commissioned especially for the public plaza outside I.M. Pei’s Cleo Rogers Memorial Library.  With its anthropomorphic features, it is a soft organic contrast to the hard geometric shapes that dominate the Library and First Christian Church.The plaza is Roman style, brick-paved and circular, and the arch is placed in the center of a slightly raised roundabout. In the past, cars were allowed to drive around the arch and park temporarily for the library, but this road was closed off shortly after to create a pedestrian plaza.  The plaza is designed for use by the public.  In 2013-14, the plaza underwent repairs but Large Arch is still on view.Similar bronze arches by Henry Moore are on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, the Lynden Sculpture Garden in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the Nelson Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Missouri. A similar arch by Moore made from travertine is also on display in Kensington Gardens in London, England.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Indiana

Complex patina and surface texture of ''Large Arch''

File:Surface detail of Large Arch by Henry Moore.jpg

First Christian Church (Columbus, Indiana)

List of public art in Bartholomew County, Indiana

Category:Public art in Columbus, Indiana

File:Detail of Large Arch, signature of artist Henry Moore.jpg

Moore's signature at the base of ''Large Arch'' and the foundry mark "H. Noack" in Berlin


Large Arch

Prompt: Explain the Location history about the Historical information of this artwork, Large Arch.

Large Arch in Columbus, Indiana, was commissioned especially for the public plaza outside I.M. Pei’s Cleo Rogers Memorial Library.  With its anthropomorphic features, it is a soft organic contrast to the hard geometric shapes that dominate the Library and First Christian Church.The plaza is Roman style, brick-paved and circular, and the arch is placed in the center of a slightly raised roundabout. In the past, cars were allowed to drive around the arch and park temporarily for the library, but this road was closed off shortly after to create a pedestrian plaza.  The plaza is designed for use by the public.  In 2013-14, the plaza underwent repairs but Large Arch is still on view.Similar bronze arches by Henry Moore are on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, the Lynden Sculpture Garden in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the Nelson Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Missouri. A similar arch by Moore made from travertine is also on display in Kensington Gardens in London, England.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Indiana

Complex patina and surface texture of ''Large Arch''

File:Surface detail of Large Arch by Henry Moore.jpg

First Christian Church (Columbus, Indiana)

List of public art in Bartholomew County, Indiana

Category:Public art in Columbus, Indiana

File:Detail of Large Arch, signature of artist Henry Moore.jpg

Moore's signature at the base of ''Large Arch'' and the foundry mark "H. Noack" in Berlin


Large Arch

Prompt: In Large Arch, how is the Location history of the Historical information explained?

Large Arch in Columbus, Indiana, was commissioned especially for the public plaza outside I.M. Pei’s Cleo Rogers Memorial Library.  With its anthropomorphic features, it is a soft organic contrast to the hard geometric shapes that dominate the Library and First Christian Church.The plaza is Roman style, brick-paved and circular, and the arch is placed in the center of a slightly raised roundabout. In the past, cars were allowed to drive around the arch and park temporarily for the library, but this road was closed off shortly after to create a pedestrian plaza.  The plaza is designed for use by the public.  In 2013-14, the plaza underwent repairs but Large Arch is still on view.Similar bronze arches by Henry Moore are on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, the Lynden Sculpture Garden in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the Nelson Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Missouri. A similar arch by Moore made from travertine is also on display in Kensington Gardens in London, England.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Indiana

Complex patina and surface texture of ''Large Arch''

File:Surface detail of Large Arch by Henry Moore.jpg

First Christian Church (Columbus, Indiana)

List of public art in Bartholomew County, Indiana

Category:Public art in Columbus, Indiana

File:Detail of Large Arch, signature of artist Henry Moore.jpg

Moore's signature at the base of ''Large Arch'' and the foundry mark "H. Noack" in Berlin


Large Arch

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the Location history in Large Arch's Historical information.

Large Arch in Columbus, Indiana, was commissioned especially for the public plaza outside I.M. Pei’s Cleo Rogers Memorial Library.  With its anthropomorphic features, it is a soft organic contrast to the hard geometric shapes that dominate the Library and First Christian Church.The plaza is Roman style, brick-paved and circular, and the arch is placed in the center of a slightly raised roundabout. In the past, cars were allowed to drive around the arch and park temporarily for the library, but this road was closed off shortly after to create a pedestrian plaza.  The plaza is designed for use by the public.  In 2013-14, the plaza underwent repairs but Large Arch is still on view.Similar bronze arches by Henry Moore are on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, the Lynden Sculpture Garden in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the Nelson Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Missouri. A similar arch by Moore made from travertine is also on display in Kensington Gardens in London, England.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Indiana

Complex patina and surface texture of ''Large Arch''

File:Surface detail of Large Arch by Henry Moore.jpg

First Christian Church (Columbus, Indiana)

List of public art in Bartholomew County, Indiana

Category:Public art in Columbus, Indiana

File:Detail of Large Arch, signature of artist Henry Moore.jpg

Moore's signature at the base of ''Large Arch'' and the foundry mark "H. Noack" in Berlin


Large Arch

Prompt: In the context of Large Arch, explain the Acquisition and the Historical information.

Large Arch was approved by the Bartholomew County Library board and paid for by Xenia and J. Irwin Miller at the suggestion of I.M. Pei.  The Millers donated the work to the Bartholomew County Library.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Indiana

Complex patina and surface texture of ''Large Arch''

File:Surface detail of Large Arch by Henry Moore.jpg

First Christian Church (Columbus, Indiana)

List of public art in Bartholomew County, Indiana

Category:Public art in Columbus, Indiana

File:Detail of Large Arch, signature of artist Henry Moore.jpg

Moore's signature at the base of ''Large Arch'' and the foundry mark "H. Noack" in Berlin


Large Arch

Prompt: Explain the Acquisition about the Historical information of this artwork, Large Arch.

Large Arch was approved by the Bartholomew County Library board and paid for by Xenia and J. Irwin Miller at the suggestion of I.M. Pei.  The Millers donated the work to the Bartholomew County Library.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Indiana

Complex patina and surface texture of ''Large Arch''

File:Surface detail of Large Arch by Henry Moore.jpg

First Christian Church (Columbus, Indiana)

List of public art in Bartholomew County, Indiana

Category:Public art in Columbus, Indiana

File:Detail of Large Arch, signature of artist Henry Moore.jpg

Moore's signature at the base of ''Large Arch'' and the foundry mark "H. Noack" in Berlin


Large Arch

Prompt: In Large Arch, how is the Acquisition of the Historical information explained?

Large Arch was approved by the Bartholomew County Library board and paid for by Xenia and J. Irwin Miller at the suggestion of I.M. Pei.  The Millers donated the work to the Bartholomew County Library.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Indiana

Complex patina and surface texture of ''Large Arch''

File:Surface detail of Large Arch by Henry Moore.jpg

First Christian Church (Columbus, Indiana)

List of public art in Bartholomew County, Indiana

Category:Public art in Columbus, Indiana

File:Detail of Large Arch, signature of artist Henry Moore.jpg

Moore's signature at the base of ''Large Arch'' and the foundry mark "H. Noack" in Berlin


Large Arch

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the Acquisition in Large Arch's Historical information.

Large Arch was approved by the Bartholomew County Library board and paid for by Xenia and J. Irwin Miller at the suggestion of I.M. Pei.  The Millers donated the work to the Bartholomew County Library.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Indiana

Complex patina and surface texture of ''Large Arch''

File:Surface detail of Large Arch by Henry Moore.jpg

First Christian Church (Columbus, Indiana)

List of public art in Bartholomew County, Indiana

Category:Public art in Columbus, Indiana

File:Detail of Large Arch, signature of artist Henry Moore.jpg

Moore's signature at the base of ''Large Arch'' and the foundry mark "H. Noack" in Berlin


Large Arch

Prompt: Focus on Large Arch and explain the Condition.

At some point between the sculpture’s installation in 1971 and 1985, a line of caulking was added around the base of Large Arch to prevent water pooling and freeze/thaw damage.In October 1984, Large Arch was vandalized. An encircled capital letter "A" was spray painted in white on the south-east outer face of the sculpture, which may have referred to the musical style of Anarcho-punk.  While the Bartholomew County Library posted a reward for information about the crime, no one was ever charged. Two efforts were made to remove the paint, the first of which was in December 1984. Phoebe Weil, a well-known sculpture conservator from Saint Louis who pioneered the field in the 1970s, removed as much paint as possible from Large Arch. Weil also recommended coating the sculpture to ensure easier removal of future paint-based attacks. The second attempt to remove the spray-painted A was in spring of 1986. This time the library association contacted Henry Moore's studio for recommendations, approval of future cleaning, and to create a plan of regular maintenance schedule for the future. Unnamed art conservators from Cincinnati and New York City gave their opinions for future care, and both agreed that coating the sculpture in a special wax mixture would protect it from future paint-based attack.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Indiana

Complex patina and surface texture of ''Large Arch''

File:Surface detail of Large Arch by Henry Moore.jpg

First Christian Church (Columbus, Indiana)

List of public art in Bartholomew County, Indiana

Category:Public art in Columbus, Indiana

File:Detail of Large Arch, signature of artist Henry Moore.jpg

Moore's signature at the base of ''Large Arch'' and the foundry mark "H. Noack" in Berlin


Large Arch

Prompt: Explain the Condition of this artwork, Large Arch.

At some point between the sculpture’s installation in 1971 and 1985, a line of caulking was added around the base of Large Arch to prevent water pooling and freeze/thaw damage.In October 1984, Large Arch was vandalized. An encircled capital letter "A" was spray painted in white on the south-east outer face of the sculpture, which may have referred to the musical style of Anarcho-punk.  While the Bartholomew County Library posted a reward for information about the crime, no one was ever charged. Two efforts were made to remove the paint, the first of which was in December 1984. Phoebe Weil, a well-known sculpture conservator from Saint Louis who pioneered the field in the 1970s, removed as much paint as possible from Large Arch. Weil also recommended coating the sculpture to ensure easier removal of future paint-based attacks. The second attempt to remove the spray-painted A was in spring of 1986. This time the library association contacted Henry Moore's studio for recommendations, approval of future cleaning, and to create a plan of regular maintenance schedule for the future. Unnamed art conservators from Cincinnati and New York City gave their opinions for future care, and both agreed that coating the sculpture in a special wax mixture would protect it from future paint-based attack.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Indiana

Complex patina and surface texture of ''Large Arch''

File:Surface detail of Large Arch by Henry Moore.jpg

First Christian Church (Columbus, Indiana)

List of public art in Bartholomew County, Indiana

Category:Public art in Columbus, Indiana

File:Detail of Large Arch, signature of artist Henry Moore.jpg

Moore's signature at the base of ''Large Arch'' and the foundry mark "H. Noack" in Berlin


Large Arch

Prompt: How does Large Arch explain its Condition?

At some point between the sculpture’s installation in 1971 and 1985, a line of caulking was added around the base of Large Arch to prevent water pooling and freeze/thaw damage.In October 1984, Large Arch was vandalized. An encircled capital letter "A" was spray painted in white on the south-east outer face of the sculpture, which may have referred to the musical style of Anarcho-punk.  While the Bartholomew County Library posted a reward for information about the crime, no one was ever charged. Two efforts were made to remove the paint, the first of which was in December 1984. Phoebe Weil, a well-known sculpture conservator from Saint Louis who pioneered the field in the 1970s, removed as much paint as possible from Large Arch. Weil also recommended coating the sculpture to ensure easier removal of future paint-based attacks. The second attempt to remove the spray-painted A was in spring of 1986. This time the library association contacted Henry Moore's studio for recommendations, approval of future cleaning, and to create a plan of regular maintenance schedule for the future. Unnamed art conservators from Cincinnati and New York City gave their opinions for future care, and both agreed that coating the sculpture in a special wax mixture would protect it from future paint-based attack.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Indiana

Complex patina and surface texture of ''Large Arch''

File:Surface detail of Large Arch by Henry Moore.jpg

First Christian Church (Columbus, Indiana)

List of public art in Bartholomew County, Indiana

Category:Public art in Columbus, Indiana

File:Detail of Large Arch, signature of artist Henry Moore.jpg

Moore's signature at the base of ''Large Arch'' and the foundry mark "H. Noack" in Berlin


Large Arch

Prompt: In Large Arch, how is the Condition discussed?

At some point between the sculpture’s installation in 1971 and 1985, a line of caulking was added around the base of Large Arch to prevent water pooling and freeze/thaw damage.In October 1984, Large Arch was vandalized. An encircled capital letter "A" was spray painted in white on the south-east outer face of the sculpture, which may have referred to the musical style of Anarcho-punk.  While the Bartholomew County Library posted a reward for information about the crime, no one was ever charged. Two efforts were made to remove the paint, the first of which was in December 1984. Phoebe Weil, a well-known sculpture conservator from Saint Louis who pioneered the field in the 1970s, removed as much paint as possible from Large Arch. Weil also recommended coating the sculpture to ensure easier removal of future paint-based attacks. The second attempt to remove the spray-painted A was in spring of 1986. This time the library association contacted Henry Moore's studio for recommendations, approval of future cleaning, and to create a plan of regular maintenance schedule for the future. Unnamed art conservators from Cincinnati and New York City gave their opinions for future care, and both agreed that coating the sculpture in a special wax mixture would protect it from future paint-based attack.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Indiana

Complex patina and surface texture of ''Large Arch''

File:Surface detail of Large Arch by Henry Moore.jpg

First Christian Church (Columbus, Indiana)

List of public art in Bartholomew County, Indiana

Category:Public art in Columbus, Indiana

File:Detail of Large Arch, signature of artist Henry Moore.jpg

Moore's signature at the base of ''Large Arch'' and the foundry mark "H. Noack" in Berlin


Phra Phuttha Sihing

Prompt: Focus on Phra Phuttha Sihing and explain the abstract.

The Phra Phuttha Sihing (Thai: พระพุทธสิหิงค์) is a highly revered image of the Gautama Buddha in Bangkok, Thailand, second in importance only after the Emerald Buddha. The image is currently housed at the Phutthaisawan Hall (formerly a part of the Front Palace), now the Bangkok National Museum. The image was brought to Bangkok from Wat Phra Singh, Chiang Mai in 1795 by Viceroy Maha Sura Singhanat, the brother of King Rama I.

Category:Collection of the Bangkok National Museum


Phra Phuttha Sihing

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Phra Phuttha Sihing.

The Phra Phuttha Sihing (Thai: พระพุทธสิหิงค์) is a highly revered image of the Gautama Buddha in Bangkok, Thailand, second in importance only after the Emerald Buddha. The image is currently housed at the Phutthaisawan Hall (formerly a part of the Front Palace), now the Bangkok National Museum. The image was brought to Bangkok from Wat Phra Singh, Chiang Mai in 1795 by Viceroy Maha Sura Singhanat, the brother of King Rama I.

Category:Collection of the Bangkok National Museum


Phra Phuttha Sihing

Prompt: How does Phra Phuttha Sihing explain its abstract?

The Phra Phuttha Sihing (Thai: พระพุทธสิหิงค์) is a highly revered image of the Gautama Buddha in Bangkok, Thailand, second in importance only after the Emerald Buddha. The image is currently housed at the Phutthaisawan Hall (formerly a part of the Front Palace), now the Bangkok National Museum. The image was brought to Bangkok from Wat Phra Singh, Chiang Mai in 1795 by Viceroy Maha Sura Singhanat, the brother of King Rama I.

Category:Collection of the Bangkok National Museum


Phra Phuttha Sihing

Prompt: In Phra Phuttha Sihing, how is the abstract discussed?

The Phra Phuttha Sihing (Thai: พระพุทธสิหิงค์) is a highly revered image of the Gautama Buddha in Bangkok, Thailand, second in importance only after the Emerald Buddha. The image is currently housed at the Phutthaisawan Hall (formerly a part of the Front Palace), now the Bangkok National Museum. The image was brought to Bangkok from Wat Phra Singh, Chiang Mai in 1795 by Viceroy Maha Sura Singhanat, the brother of King Rama I.

Category:Collection of the Bangkok National Museum


Phra Phuttha Sihing

Prompt: Focus on Phra Phuttha Sihing and explain the History.

The exact provenance of the Phra Phuttha Sihing image is still in question. The name Sihing comes from Sinhala the name of several kingdoms in Sri Lanka. According to legend the Phra Phuttha Sihing image was created in Sri Lanka around 157 A.D. and was brought to Thailand in 1307 to Sukhothai. Later it was relocated to Phitsanulok, Ayutthaya in 1378, Kamphaeng Phet in 1382 and Chiang Rai in 1388, before it was brought back to Ayutthaya again and then back to Chiang Mai in 1407, where it was enshrined at Wat Phra Singh. When King Narai conquered Chiang Mai in 1662, he brought the Buddha image back to Ayutthaya, where it was enshrined for 105 years at Wat Phra Si Sanphet until the Fall of Ayutthaya in 1767, following which, the people of Chiang Mai brought the Buddha Sihing image back to Chiang Mai.In 1795, the image was taken from Chiang Mai by King Rama I and his brother the Viceroy Maha Sura Singhanat to Bangkok, as war booty. At first, the image was enshrined at the Front Palace of the Viceroy; after his death in 1803, the image was moved to the Wat Phra Kaew in the Grand Palace by Rama I. It remained there until 1851, when King Mongkut raised his younger brother Prince Chutamani to the unprecedented rank of Second King Pinklao. In order to celebrate the newly elevated status of Pinklao, King Mongkut gave the Second King the Phra Phuttha Sihing image. Considered the second most important Buddha image after the Emerald Buddha. The image was then taken back to the Front Palace (now the palace of Pinklao), where it was housed in the Phutthaisawan Hall, where it remains today.Apart from the aforementioned image in Bangkok, at least two other images in Thailand are identified with the Phra Phutta Sihing. One at Hor Phrabhut Sihing, Nakhon Si Thammarat and the other at Wat Phra Singh, Chiang Mai.

Category:Collection of the Bangkok National Museum


Phra Phuttha Sihing

Prompt: Explain the History of this artwork, Phra Phuttha Sihing.

The exact provenance of the Phra Phuttha Sihing image is still in question. The name Sihing comes from Sinhala the name of several kingdoms in Sri Lanka. According to legend the Phra Phuttha Sihing image was created in Sri Lanka around 157 A.D. and was brought to Thailand in 1307 to Sukhothai. Later it was relocated to Phitsanulok, Ayutthaya in 1378, Kamphaeng Phet in 1382 and Chiang Rai in 1388, before it was brought back to Ayutthaya again and then back to Chiang Mai in 1407, where it was enshrined at Wat Phra Singh. When King Narai conquered Chiang Mai in 1662, he brought the Buddha image back to Ayutthaya, where it was enshrined for 105 years at Wat Phra Si Sanphet until the Fall of Ayutthaya in 1767, following which, the people of Chiang Mai brought the Buddha Sihing image back to Chiang Mai.In 1795, the image was taken from Chiang Mai by King Rama I and his brother the Viceroy Maha Sura Singhanat to Bangkok, as war booty. At first, the image was enshrined at the Front Palace of the Viceroy; after his death in 1803, the image was moved to the Wat Phra Kaew in the Grand Palace by Rama I. It remained there until 1851, when King Mongkut raised his younger brother Prince Chutamani to the unprecedented rank of Second King Pinklao. In order to celebrate the newly elevated status of Pinklao, King Mongkut gave the Second King the Phra Phuttha Sihing image. Considered the second most important Buddha image after the Emerald Buddha. The image was then taken back to the Front Palace (now the palace of Pinklao), where it was housed in the Phutthaisawan Hall, where it remains today.Apart from the aforementioned image in Bangkok, at least two other images in Thailand are identified with the Phra Phutta Sihing. One at Hor Phrabhut Sihing, Nakhon Si Thammarat and the other at Wat Phra Singh, Chiang Mai.

Category:Collection of the Bangkok National Museum


Phra Phuttha Sihing

Prompt: How does Phra Phuttha Sihing explain its History?

The exact provenance of the Phra Phuttha Sihing image is still in question. The name Sihing comes from Sinhala the name of several kingdoms in Sri Lanka. According to legend the Phra Phuttha Sihing image was created in Sri Lanka around 157 A.D. and was brought to Thailand in 1307 to Sukhothai. Later it was relocated to Phitsanulok, Ayutthaya in 1378, Kamphaeng Phet in 1382 and Chiang Rai in 1388, before it was brought back to Ayutthaya again and then back to Chiang Mai in 1407, where it was enshrined at Wat Phra Singh. When King Narai conquered Chiang Mai in 1662, he brought the Buddha image back to Ayutthaya, where it was enshrined for 105 years at Wat Phra Si Sanphet until the Fall of Ayutthaya in 1767, following which, the people of Chiang Mai brought the Buddha Sihing image back to Chiang Mai.In 1795, the image was taken from Chiang Mai by King Rama I and his brother the Viceroy Maha Sura Singhanat to Bangkok, as war booty. At first, the image was enshrined at the Front Palace of the Viceroy; after his death in 1803, the image was moved to the Wat Phra Kaew in the Grand Palace by Rama I. It remained there until 1851, when King Mongkut raised his younger brother Prince Chutamani to the unprecedented rank of Second King Pinklao. In order to celebrate the newly elevated status of Pinklao, King Mongkut gave the Second King the Phra Phuttha Sihing image. Considered the second most important Buddha image after the Emerald Buddha. The image was then taken back to the Front Palace (now the palace of Pinklao), where it was housed in the Phutthaisawan Hall, where it remains today.Apart from the aforementioned image in Bangkok, at least two other images in Thailand are identified with the Phra Phutta Sihing. One at Hor Phrabhut Sihing, Nakhon Si Thammarat and the other at Wat Phra Singh, Chiang Mai.

Category:Collection of the Bangkok National Museum


Phra Phuttha Sihing

Prompt: In Phra Phuttha Sihing, how is the History discussed?

The exact provenance of the Phra Phuttha Sihing image is still in question. The name Sihing comes from Sinhala the name of several kingdoms in Sri Lanka. According to legend the Phra Phuttha Sihing image was created in Sri Lanka around 157 A.D. and was brought to Thailand in 1307 to Sukhothai. Later it was relocated to Phitsanulok, Ayutthaya in 1378, Kamphaeng Phet in 1382 and Chiang Rai in 1388, before it was brought back to Ayutthaya again and then back to Chiang Mai in 1407, where it was enshrined at Wat Phra Singh. When King Narai conquered Chiang Mai in 1662, he brought the Buddha image back to Ayutthaya, where it was enshrined for 105 years at Wat Phra Si Sanphet until the Fall of Ayutthaya in 1767, following which, the people of Chiang Mai brought the Buddha Sihing image back to Chiang Mai.In 1795, the image was taken from Chiang Mai by King Rama I and his brother the Viceroy Maha Sura Singhanat to Bangkok, as war booty. At first, the image was enshrined at the Front Palace of the Viceroy; after his death in 1803, the image was moved to the Wat Phra Kaew in the Grand Palace by Rama I. It remained there until 1851, when King Mongkut raised his younger brother Prince Chutamani to the unprecedented rank of Second King Pinklao. In order to celebrate the newly elevated status of Pinklao, King Mongkut gave the Second King the Phra Phuttha Sihing image. Considered the second most important Buddha image after the Emerald Buddha. The image was then taken back to the Front Palace (now the palace of Pinklao), where it was housed in the Phutthaisawan Hall, where it remains today.Apart from the aforementioned image in Bangkok, at least two other images in Thailand are identified with the Phra Phutta Sihing. One at Hor Phrabhut Sihing, Nakhon Si Thammarat and the other at Wat Phra Singh, Chiang Mai.

Category:Collection of the Bangkok National Museum


Phra Phuttha Sihing

Prompt: Focus on Phra Phuttha Sihing and explain the Description.

The image is of the Buddha seated in the meditative posture (vajrāsana or meditation attitude), a stance commonly associated with Buddhist art found in Sri Lanka. This image was made of cast bronze and gilded with gold. The image was sculpted in classic Lan Na and Sukhothai style, but using Singhalese iconography. The images's facial features and long fingers are indicative of classic Lan Na style. The Sukhothai characteristics seems to manifest in the image's full cheeks and hooked nose.Along with these classical features, the image shows features that is suggestive of its northern origins. The removable finial on top of the head, the small spiky hair curls, the raised area above the upper lip, dimpling at the corner of the mouth and the style of the shawl began to appear in Lan Na images around 1480s - 1500s. The proof of the image's northern manufacture is in the Lotus throne, the pedestal with its lotus petal decorations, the filament making vertical striations and the anther or head creating a beaded rim to the plinth. These are features found only in Lan Na art.The crystal flame finial on the top of the head is unusual, since most bronze images will have a bronze finial. In Lan Na however the finials are cast separately and is removable, whereas in Sukhothai the whole image is always cast whole. The crystal material used for the image's flame finial is indicative of the special status of the image.

Category:Collection of the Bangkok National Museum


Phra Phuttha Sihing

Prompt: Explain the Description of this artwork, Phra Phuttha Sihing.

The image is of the Buddha seated in the meditative posture (vajrāsana or meditation attitude), a stance commonly associated with Buddhist art found in Sri Lanka. This image was made of cast bronze and gilded with gold. The image was sculpted in classic Lan Na and Sukhothai style, but using Singhalese iconography. The images's facial features and long fingers are indicative of classic Lan Na style. The Sukhothai characteristics seems to manifest in the image's full cheeks and hooked nose.Along with these classical features, the image shows features that is suggestive of its northern origins. The removable finial on top of the head, the small spiky hair curls, the raised area above the upper lip, dimpling at the corner of the mouth and the style of the shawl began to appear in Lan Na images around 1480s - 1500s. The proof of the image's northern manufacture is in the Lotus throne, the pedestal with its lotus petal decorations, the filament making vertical striations and the anther or head creating a beaded rim to the plinth. These are features found only in Lan Na art.The crystal flame finial on the top of the head is unusual, since most bronze images will have a bronze finial. In Lan Na however the finials are cast separately and is removable, whereas in Sukhothai the whole image is always cast whole. The crystal material used for the image's flame finial is indicative of the special status of the image.

Category:Collection of the Bangkok National Museum


Phra Phuttha Sihing

Prompt: How does Phra Phuttha Sihing explain its Description?

The image is of the Buddha seated in the meditative posture (vajrāsana or meditation attitude), a stance commonly associated with Buddhist art found in Sri Lanka. This image was made of cast bronze and gilded with gold. The image was sculpted in classic Lan Na and Sukhothai style, but using Singhalese iconography. The images's facial features and long fingers are indicative of classic Lan Na style. The Sukhothai characteristics seems to manifest in the image's full cheeks and hooked nose.Along with these classical features, the image shows features that is suggestive of its northern origins. The removable finial on top of the head, the small spiky hair curls, the raised area above the upper lip, dimpling at the corner of the mouth and the style of the shawl began to appear in Lan Na images around 1480s - 1500s. The proof of the image's northern manufacture is in the Lotus throne, the pedestal with its lotus petal decorations, the filament making vertical striations and the anther or head creating a beaded rim to the plinth. These are features found only in Lan Na art.The crystal flame finial on the top of the head is unusual, since most bronze images will have a bronze finial. In Lan Na however the finials are cast separately and is removable, whereas in Sukhothai the whole image is always cast whole. The crystal material used for the image's flame finial is indicative of the special status of the image.

Category:Collection of the Bangkok National Museum


Phra Phuttha Sihing

Prompt: In Phra Phuttha Sihing, how is the Description discussed?

The image is of the Buddha seated in the meditative posture (vajrāsana or meditation attitude), a stance commonly associated with Buddhist art found in Sri Lanka. This image was made of cast bronze and gilded with gold. The image was sculpted in classic Lan Na and Sukhothai style, but using Singhalese iconography. The images's facial features and long fingers are indicative of classic Lan Na style. The Sukhothai characteristics seems to manifest in the image's full cheeks and hooked nose.Along with these classical features, the image shows features that is suggestive of its northern origins. The removable finial on top of the head, the small spiky hair curls, the raised area above the upper lip, dimpling at the corner of the mouth and the style of the shawl began to appear in Lan Na images around 1480s - 1500s. The proof of the image's northern manufacture is in the Lotus throne, the pedestal with its lotus petal decorations, the filament making vertical striations and the anther or head creating a beaded rim to the plinth. These are features found only in Lan Na art.The crystal flame finial on the top of the head is unusual, since most bronze images will have a bronze finial. In Lan Na however the finials are cast separately and is removable, whereas in Sukhothai the whole image is always cast whole. The crystal material used for the image's flame finial is indicative of the special status of the image.

Category:Collection of the Bangkok National Museum


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: Focus on The Captive (painting) and explain the abstract.

The Captive, from Sterne is a painting by Joseph Wright of Derby completed in 1774 and now in the National Gallery of Canada. Sterne's Captive, first exhibited by the artist in 1778, is a similar painting by Wright in the Derby Museum and Art Gallery. The latter painting resulted in a rare engraving, as its purchaser commissioned a print run of only twenty copies before the copper printing plate was destroyed. In 2012, Derby Museum commissioned another Captive painting from Emma Tooth.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version

A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, The Captive (painting).

The Captive, from Sterne is a painting by Joseph Wright of Derby completed in 1774 and now in the National Gallery of Canada. Sterne's Captive, first exhibited by the artist in 1778, is a similar painting by Wright in the Derby Museum and Art Gallery. The latter painting resulted in a rare engraving, as its purchaser commissioned a print run of only twenty copies before the copper printing plate was destroyed. In 2012, Derby Museum commissioned another Captive painting from Emma Tooth.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version

A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: How does The Captive (painting) explain its abstract?

The Captive, from Sterne is a painting by Joseph Wright of Derby completed in 1774 and now in the National Gallery of Canada. Sterne's Captive, first exhibited by the artist in 1778, is a similar painting by Wright in the Derby Museum and Art Gallery. The latter painting resulted in a rare engraving, as its purchaser commissioned a print run of only twenty copies before the copper printing plate was destroyed. In 2012, Derby Museum commissioned another Captive painting from Emma Tooth.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version

A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: In The Captive (painting), how is the abstract discussed?

The Captive, from Sterne is a painting by Joseph Wright of Derby completed in 1774 and now in the National Gallery of Canada. Sterne's Captive, first exhibited by the artist in 1778, is a similar painting by Wright in the Derby Museum and Art Gallery. The latter painting resulted in a rare engraving, as its purchaser commissioned a print run of only twenty copies before the copper printing plate was destroyed. In 2012, Derby Museum commissioned another Captive painting from Emma Tooth.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version

A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: Focus on The Captive (painting) and explain the Description.

Both paintings show the despair of a traveller who finds himself abandoned in a foreign jail. The Captive title is based on the section of the same name in Laurence Sterne's A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy (1768). In the episode in question, the hero of the story, Yorick, imagines that he is imprisoned in the Bastille because he has lost his passport. Yorick is later released because his name is taken to indicate that he is an important person, because he is a court jester: Yorick is a jester in Shakespeare's play Hamlet. The journey takes place in 1762, when Britain was at war with France, and imprisonment was a real possibility for a traveller from a hostile country.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: Explain the Description of this artwork, The Captive (painting).

Both paintings show the despair of a traveller who finds himself abandoned in a foreign jail. The Captive title is based on the section of the same name in Laurence Sterne's A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy (1768). In the episode in question, the hero of the story, Yorick, imagines that he is imprisoned in the Bastille because he has lost his passport. Yorick is later released because his name is taken to indicate that he is an important person, because he is a court jester: Yorick is a jester in Shakespeare's play Hamlet. The journey takes place in 1762, when Britain was at war with France, and imprisonment was a real possibility for a traveller from a hostile country.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: How does The Captive (painting) explain its Description?

Both paintings show the despair of a traveller who finds himself abandoned in a foreign jail. The Captive title is based on the section of the same name in Laurence Sterne's A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy (1768). In the episode in question, the hero of the story, Yorick, imagines that he is imprisoned in the Bastille because he has lost his passport. Yorick is later released because his name is taken to indicate that he is an important person, because he is a court jester: Yorick is a jester in Shakespeare's play Hamlet. The journey takes place in 1762, when Britain was at war with France, and imprisonment was a real possibility for a traveller from a hostile country.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: In The Captive (painting), how is the Description discussed?

Both paintings show the despair of a traveller who finds himself abandoned in a foreign jail. The Captive title is based on the section of the same name in Laurence Sterne's A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy (1768). In the episode in question, the hero of the story, Yorick, imagines that he is imprisoned in the Bastille because he has lost his passport. Yorick is later released because his name is taken to indicate that he is an important person, because he is a court jester: Yorick is a jester in Shakespeare's play Hamlet. The journey takes place in 1762, when Britain was at war with France, and imprisonment was a real possibility for a traveller from a hostile country.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: Focus on The Captive (painting) and explain the History.

The pose of the model in Wright's first painting is the same as that used by Michelangelo when painting The Creation of Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. And the first captive painting was made by Wright while in Rome in 1774. After its completion he had to import it back into Britain; Llewellyn Jewitt records that he nearly imported it free of tax but a late objection obliged him to pay import tax. The debate focused on whether the sitter was Roman and it was argued that the sitter should have been better dressed.The first painting was made into a stipple engraving by Thomas Ryder in 1779 and it was published by John and Josiah Boydell in 1786. However an earlier mezzotint engraving by John Raphael Smith of the later 1778 painting had been commissioned by John Milnes after he bought the painting at a Royal Academy show. Milnes obtained a print of every Wright painting that he could, but the print that he commissioned of his own painting was limited to just twenty copies before the plate was destroyed. This engraving is now exceptionally rare and is only available in a small number of British institutions and none abroad.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version

A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: Explain the History of this artwork, The Captive (painting).

The pose of the model in Wright's first painting is the same as that used by Michelangelo when painting The Creation of Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. And the first captive painting was made by Wright while in Rome in 1774. After its completion he had to import it back into Britain; Llewellyn Jewitt records that he nearly imported it free of tax but a late objection obliged him to pay import tax. The debate focused on whether the sitter was Roman and it was argued that the sitter should have been better dressed.The first painting was made into a stipple engraving by Thomas Ryder in 1779 and it was published by John and Josiah Boydell in 1786. However an earlier mezzotint engraving by John Raphael Smith of the later 1778 painting had been commissioned by John Milnes after he bought the painting at a Royal Academy show. Milnes obtained a print of every Wright painting that he could, but the print that he commissioned of his own painting was limited to just twenty copies before the plate was destroyed. This engraving is now exceptionally rare and is only available in a small number of British institutions and none abroad.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version

A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: How does The Captive (painting) explain its History?

The pose of the model in Wright's first painting is the same as that used by Michelangelo when painting The Creation of Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. And the first captive painting was made by Wright while in Rome in 1774. After its completion he had to import it back into Britain; Llewellyn Jewitt records that he nearly imported it free of tax but a late objection obliged him to pay import tax. The debate focused on whether the sitter was Roman and it was argued that the sitter should have been better dressed.The first painting was made into a stipple engraving by Thomas Ryder in 1779 and it was published by John and Josiah Boydell in 1786. However an earlier mezzotint engraving by John Raphael Smith of the later 1778 painting had been commissioned by John Milnes after he bought the painting at a Royal Academy show. Milnes obtained a print of every Wright painting that he could, but the print that he commissioned of his own painting was limited to just twenty copies before the plate was destroyed. This engraving is now exceptionally rare and is only available in a small number of British institutions and none abroad.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version

A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: In The Captive (painting), how is the History discussed?

The pose of the model in Wright's first painting is the same as that used by Michelangelo when painting The Creation of Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. And the first captive painting was made by Wright while in Rome in 1774. After its completion he had to import it back into Britain; Llewellyn Jewitt records that he nearly imported it free of tax but a late objection obliged him to pay import tax. The debate focused on whether the sitter was Roman and it was argued that the sitter should have been better dressed.The first painting was made into a stipple engraving by Thomas Ryder in 1779 and it was published by John and Josiah Boydell in 1786. However an earlier mezzotint engraving by John Raphael Smith of the later 1778 painting had been commissioned by John Milnes after he bought the painting at a Royal Academy show. Milnes obtained a print of every Wright painting that he could, but the print that he commissioned of his own painting was limited to just twenty copies before the plate was destroyed. This engraving is now exceptionally rare and is only available in a small number of British institutions and none abroad.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version

A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: Focus on The Captive (painting) and explain the Inspired by.

The Captive paintings were inspired by Laurence Sterne's novel, but Wright's paintings have inspired other works. In 2012, Derby Museum commissioned the British artist Emma Tooth to create a painting based on Wright's paintings. She chose to mimic the construction of The Captive. She took the classical pose of the captive in Wright's version and moved it to a modern man who has chosen to waste his time in front of the television. Tooth noted that the man in the painting (and the model) has "don’t count the days, make the days count" tattooed on his chest.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version

A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: Explain the Inspired by of this artwork, The Captive (painting).

The Captive paintings were inspired by Laurence Sterne's novel, but Wright's paintings have inspired other works. In 2012, Derby Museum commissioned the British artist Emma Tooth to create a painting based on Wright's paintings. She chose to mimic the construction of The Captive. She took the classical pose of the captive in Wright's version and moved it to a modern man who has chosen to waste his time in front of the television. Tooth noted that the man in the painting (and the model) has "don’t count the days, make the days count" tattooed on his chest.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version

A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: How does The Captive (painting) explain its Inspired by?

The Captive paintings were inspired by Laurence Sterne's novel, but Wright's paintings have inspired other works. In 2012, Derby Museum commissioned the British artist Emma Tooth to create a painting based on Wright's paintings. She chose to mimic the construction of The Captive. She took the classical pose of the captive in Wright's version and moved it to a modern man who has chosen to waste his time in front of the television. Tooth noted that the man in the painting (and the model) has "don’t count the days, make the days count" tattooed on his chest.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version

A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy


The Captive (painting)

Prompt: In The Captive (painting), how is the Inspired by discussed?

The Captive paintings were inspired by Laurence Sterne's novel, but Wright's paintings have inspired other works. In 2012, Derby Museum commissioned the British artist Emma Tooth to create a painting based on Wright's paintings. She chose to mimic the construction of The Captive. She took the classical pose of the captive in Wright's version and moved it to a modern man who has chosen to waste his time in front of the television. Tooth noted that the man in the painting (and the model) has "don’t count the days, make the days count" tattooed on his chest.

Category:Paintings by Joseph Wright of Derby

A study of John Stavely for Wright's second version

A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: Focus on Portrait of a Commander and explain the abstract.

Portrait of a Commander or A Commander Being Dressed for Battle is a portrait of an unknown man in plate armour, by Peter Paul Rubens. In July 2010 it was sold for £9 million by Christie's after Sotheby's turned it down, suspecting its authenticity as a Rubens. In December 2011, the portrait was placed on loan with the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Portrait of a Commander.

Portrait of a Commander or A Commander Being Dressed for Battle is a portrait of an unknown man in plate armour, by Peter Paul Rubens. In July 2010 it was sold for £9 million by Christie's after Sotheby's turned it down, suspecting its authenticity as a Rubens. In December 2011, the portrait was placed on loan with the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: How does Portrait of a Commander explain its abstract?

Portrait of a Commander or A Commander Being Dressed for Battle is a portrait of an unknown man in plate armour, by Peter Paul Rubens. In July 2010 it was sold for £9 million by Christie's after Sotheby's turned it down, suspecting its authenticity as a Rubens. In December 2011, the portrait was placed on loan with the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: In Portrait of a Commander, how is the abstract discussed?

Portrait of a Commander or A Commander Being Dressed for Battle is a portrait of an unknown man in plate armour, by Peter Paul Rubens. In July 2010 it was sold for £9 million by Christie's after Sotheby's turned it down, suspecting its authenticity as a Rubens. In December 2011, the portrait was placed on loan with the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: Focus on Portrait of a Commander and explain the Description.

The painting, done in oil on panel, measures 48.25 × 38 3/8 in. (122.6 × 98.2 cm). It depicts a military commander, as shown by his baton, being dressed by pages. The identity of the commander is unknown, although Charles V, Cornelis van der Geest, and the Duke of Alba have all been identified as possible subjects. The Christie's cataloguer felt that the commander appears too idealized to be an actual person. The painting has been praised for its crisp and intense hue and the reflective properties of the armour. If by Rubens, it would have been painted around 1613.

Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: Explain the Description of this artwork, Portrait of a Commander.

The painting, done in oil on panel, measures 48.25 × 38 3/8 in. (122.6 × 98.2 cm). It depicts a military commander, as shown by his baton, being dressed by pages. The identity of the commander is unknown, although Charles V, Cornelis van der Geest, and the Duke of Alba have all been identified as possible subjects. The Christie's cataloguer felt that the commander appears too idealized to be an actual person. The painting has been praised for its crisp and intense hue and the reflective properties of the armour. If by Rubens, it would have been painted around 1613.

Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: How does Portrait of a Commander explain its Description?

The painting, done in oil on panel, measures 48.25 × 38 3/8 in. (122.6 × 98.2 cm). It depicts a military commander, as shown by his baton, being dressed by pages. The identity of the commander is unknown, although Charles V, Cornelis van der Geest, and the Duke of Alba have all been identified as possible subjects. The Christie's cataloguer felt that the commander appears too idealized to be an actual person. The painting has been praised for its crisp and intense hue and the reflective properties of the armour. If by Rubens, it would have been painted around 1613.

Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: In Portrait of a Commander, how is the Description discussed?

The painting, done in oil on panel, measures 48.25 × 38 3/8 in. (122.6 × 98.2 cm). It depicts a military commander, as shown by his baton, being dressed by pages. The identity of the commander is unknown, although Charles V, Cornelis van der Geest, and the Duke of Alba have all been identified as possible subjects. The Christie's cataloguer felt that the commander appears too idealized to be an actual person. The painting has been praised for its crisp and intense hue and the reflective properties of the armour. If by Rubens, it would have been painted around 1613.

Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: Focus on Portrait of a Commander and explain the History.

The provenance of the work before 1802 is uncertain, with Christie's adding "(possibly)" to almost every paragraph in their description, until it came into the possession of George Spencer, 2nd Earl Spencer by 1802. After that it remained the property of the Spencer family until 2010, when Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer, brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, decided to auction it with nearly 800 other artworks not deemed core to the Althorp collection in order to raise funds for restoration work at the estate. It was sold at the lower end of the Christie's estimate of between £8m and £12m to Konrad Bernheimer for £9 million ($13.7 million). This is the second highest price ever paid for Rubens' work at auction, after the Massacre of the Innocents, now in Toronto, which was sold at Sotheby's in London on 10 July 2002, for £49.5 million to Canadian businessman and art collector Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet.

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: Explain the History of this artwork, Portrait of a Commander.

The provenance of the work before 1802 is uncertain, with Christie's adding "(possibly)" to almost every paragraph in their description, until it came into the possession of George Spencer, 2nd Earl Spencer by 1802. After that it remained the property of the Spencer family until 2010, when Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer, brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, decided to auction it with nearly 800 other artworks not deemed core to the Althorp collection in order to raise funds for restoration work at the estate. It was sold at the lower end of the Christie's estimate of between £8m and £12m to Konrad Bernheimer for £9 million ($13.7 million). This is the second highest price ever paid for Rubens' work at auction, after the Massacre of the Innocents, now in Toronto, which was sold at Sotheby's in London on 10 July 2002, for £49.5 million to Canadian businessman and art collector Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet.

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: How does Portrait of a Commander explain its History?

The provenance of the work before 1802 is uncertain, with Christie's adding "(possibly)" to almost every paragraph in their description, until it came into the possession of George Spencer, 2nd Earl Spencer by 1802. After that it remained the property of the Spencer family until 2010, when Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer, brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, decided to auction it with nearly 800 other artworks not deemed core to the Althorp collection in order to raise funds for restoration work at the estate. It was sold at the lower end of the Christie's estimate of between £8m and £12m to Konrad Bernheimer for £9 million ($13.7 million). This is the second highest price ever paid for Rubens' work at auction, after the Massacre of the Innocents, now in Toronto, which was sold at Sotheby's in London on 10 July 2002, for £49.5 million to Canadian businessman and art collector Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet.

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: In Portrait of a Commander, how is the History discussed?

The provenance of the work before 1802 is uncertain, with Christie's adding "(possibly)" to almost every paragraph in their description, until it came into the possession of George Spencer, 2nd Earl Spencer by 1802. After that it remained the property of the Spencer family until 2010, when Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer, brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, decided to auction it with nearly 800 other artworks not deemed core to the Althorp collection in order to raise funds for restoration work at the estate. It was sold at the lower end of the Christie's estimate of between £8m and £12m to Konrad Bernheimer for £9 million ($13.7 million). This is the second highest price ever paid for Rubens' work at auction, after the Massacre of the Innocents, now in Toronto, which was sold at Sotheby's in London on 10 July 2002, for £49.5 million to Canadian businessman and art collector Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet.

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: Focus on Portrait of a Commander and explain the Authenticity.

For more than 100 years, it was attributed to the "School of Porbus". It was not attributed to Rubens until after World War II. According to Brian Sewell, it is an "uncomfortable Rubens" and the attribution "doesn't quite ring true". A panel of academics employed by Christie's examined the portrait and ultimately concluded that the painting is a genuine Rubens.

Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: Explain the Authenticity of this artwork, Portrait of a Commander.

For more than 100 years, it was attributed to the "School of Porbus". It was not attributed to Rubens until after World War II. According to Brian Sewell, it is an "uncomfortable Rubens" and the attribution "doesn't quite ring true". A panel of academics employed by Christie's examined the portrait and ultimately concluded that the painting is a genuine Rubens.

Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: How does Portrait of a Commander explain its Authenticity?

For more than 100 years, it was attributed to the "School of Porbus". It was not attributed to Rubens until after World War II. According to Brian Sewell, it is an "uncomfortable Rubens" and the attribution "doesn't quite ring true". A panel of academics employed by Christie's examined the portrait and ultimately concluded that the painting is a genuine Rubens.

Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Portrait of a Commander

Prompt: In Portrait of a Commander, how is the Authenticity discussed?

For more than 100 years, it was attributed to the "School of Porbus". It was not attributed to Rubens until after World War II. According to Brian Sewell, it is an "uncomfortable Rubens" and the attribution "doesn't quite ring true". A panel of academics employed by Christie's examined the portrait and ultimately concluded that the painting is a genuine Rubens.

Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet

Category:Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba


Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael)

Prompt: Focus on Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael) and explain the abstract.

Ezekiel's Vision is a c. 1518 painting by Raphael showing the prophet Ezekiel's vision of God in majesty. It is housed in the Palatine Gallery of Palazzo Pitti, Florence, central Italy.

Category:Paintings based on the Hebrew Bible

Category:Paintings in the Galleria Palatina


Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael)

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael).

Ezekiel's Vision is a c. 1518 painting by Raphael showing the prophet Ezekiel's vision of God in majesty. It is housed in the Palatine Gallery of Palazzo Pitti, Florence, central Italy.

Category:Paintings based on the Hebrew Bible

Category:Paintings in the Galleria Palatina


Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael)

Prompt: How does Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael) explain its abstract?

Ezekiel's Vision is a c. 1518 painting by Raphael showing the prophet Ezekiel's vision of God in majesty. It is housed in the Palatine Gallery of Palazzo Pitti, Florence, central Italy.

Category:Paintings based on the Hebrew Bible

Category:Paintings in the Galleria Palatina


Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael)

Prompt: In Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael), how is the abstract discussed?

Ezekiel's Vision is a c. 1518 painting by Raphael showing the prophet Ezekiel's vision of God in majesty. It is housed in the Palatine Gallery of Palazzo Pitti, Florence, central Italy.

Category:Paintings based on the Hebrew Bible

Category:Paintings in the Galleria Palatina


Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael)

Prompt: Focus on Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael) and explain the History.

The work is remembered by Renaissance art biographer Giorgio Vasari as property of a Bolognese nobleman, Vincenzo Ercolani. There is trace of payment by him to Raphael for 8 ducats in 1510, but this is generally considered just a down payment, since stylistically the work (inspired for example by Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling) cannot be dated before 1518.In Florence since as early as 1589, it was ceded to Francesco I de' Medici and was placed at the Uffizi. The painting is known to be at Palazzo Pitti in 1697. In 1799 it was robbed by the French, who kept it in Paris until returning it back in 1816.The work was once considered to be by the hand of Giulio Romano, with Raphael providing only the drawing. However, it has been subsequently assigned to Raphael.

Category:Paintings based on the Hebrew Bible

Category:Paintings in the Galleria Palatina


Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael)

Prompt: Explain the History of this artwork, Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael).

The work is remembered by Renaissance art biographer Giorgio Vasari as property of a Bolognese nobleman, Vincenzo Ercolani. There is trace of payment by him to Raphael for 8 ducats in 1510, but this is generally considered just a down payment, since stylistically the work (inspired for example by Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling) cannot be dated before 1518.In Florence since as early as 1589, it was ceded to Francesco I de' Medici and was placed at the Uffizi. The painting is known to be at Palazzo Pitti in 1697. In 1799 it was robbed by the French, who kept it in Paris until returning it back in 1816.The work was once considered to be by the hand of Giulio Romano, with Raphael providing only the drawing. However, it has been subsequently assigned to Raphael.

Category:Paintings based on the Hebrew Bible

Category:Paintings in the Galleria Palatina


Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael)

Prompt: How does Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael) explain its History?

The work is remembered by Renaissance art biographer Giorgio Vasari as property of a Bolognese nobleman, Vincenzo Ercolani. There is trace of payment by him to Raphael for 8 ducats in 1510, but this is generally considered just a down payment, since stylistically the work (inspired for example by Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling) cannot be dated before 1518.In Florence since as early as 1589, it was ceded to Francesco I de' Medici and was placed at the Uffizi. The painting is known to be at Palazzo Pitti in 1697. In 1799 it was robbed by the French, who kept it in Paris until returning it back in 1816.The work was once considered to be by the hand of Giulio Romano, with Raphael providing only the drawing. However, it has been subsequently assigned to Raphael.

Category:Paintings based on the Hebrew Bible

Category:Paintings in the Galleria Palatina


Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael)

Prompt: In Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael), how is the History discussed?

The work is remembered by Renaissance art biographer Giorgio Vasari as property of a Bolognese nobleman, Vincenzo Ercolani. There is trace of payment by him to Raphael for 8 ducats in 1510, but this is generally considered just a down payment, since stylistically the work (inspired for example by Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling) cannot be dated before 1518.In Florence since as early as 1589, it was ceded to Francesco I de' Medici and was placed at the Uffizi. The painting is known to be at Palazzo Pitti in 1697. In 1799 it was robbed by the French, who kept it in Paris until returning it back in 1816.The work was once considered to be by the hand of Giulio Romano, with Raphael providing only the drawing. However, it has been subsequently assigned to Raphael.

Category:Paintings based on the Hebrew Bible

Category:Paintings in the Galleria Palatina


Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael)

Prompt: Focus on Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael) and explain the Description.

The painting measures 40 by 30 centimetres (16 in × 12 in).

Category:Paintings based on the Hebrew Bible

Category:Paintings in the Galleria Palatina


Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael)

Prompt: Explain the Description of this artwork, Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael).

The painting measures 40 by 30 centimetres (16 in × 12 in).

Category:Paintings based on the Hebrew Bible

Category:Paintings in the Galleria Palatina


Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael)

Prompt: How does Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael) explain its Description?

The painting measures 40 by 30 centimetres (16 in × 12 in).

Category:Paintings based on the Hebrew Bible

Category:Paintings in the Galleria Palatina


Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael)

Prompt: In Ezekiel's Vision (Raphael), how is the Description discussed?

The painting measures 40 by 30 centimetres (16 in × 12 in).

Category:Paintings based on the Hebrew Bible

Category:Paintings in the Galleria Palatina


Spillover II

Prompt: Focus on Spillover II and explain the abstract.

Spillover is a public artwork by Spanish artist Jaume Plensa. It is installed in Atwater Park in Shorewood, Wisconsin, United States. It depicts an 8.5-foot (2.6 m) crouching man whose open form is made of steel letters. It is on a 2-foot (0.61 m) concrete base, and was publicly dedicated on September 21, 2010.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Spillover II.

Spillover is a public artwork by Spanish artist Jaume Plensa. It is installed in Atwater Park in Shorewood, Wisconsin, United States. It depicts an 8.5-foot (2.6 m) crouching man whose open form is made of steel letters. It is on a 2-foot (0.61 m) concrete base, and was publicly dedicated on September 21, 2010.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: How does Spillover II explain its abstract?

Spillover is a public artwork by Spanish artist Jaume Plensa. It is installed in Atwater Park in Shorewood, Wisconsin, United States. It depicts an 8.5-foot (2.6 m) crouching man whose open form is made of steel letters. It is on a 2-foot (0.61 m) concrete base, and was publicly dedicated on September 21, 2010.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: In Spillover II, how is the abstract discussed?

Spillover is a public artwork by Spanish artist Jaume Plensa. It is installed in Atwater Park in Shorewood, Wisconsin, United States. It depicts an 8.5-foot (2.6 m) crouching man whose open form is made of steel letters. It is on a 2-foot (0.61 m) concrete base, and was publicly dedicated on September 21, 2010.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: Focus on Spillover II and explain the Description.

Spillover is composed of steel letters that are tack welded together. In Plensa's words, "The letters that form the open framework suggest that language is our primary tool for experiencing the world and each other, and that we are, essentially, both limited and empowered by this abstract means of translating our experiences." The work, on a concrete base at the intersection of Capitol Drive and Lake Drive, is situated with the figure looking out onto Lake Michigan. Illuminated from within, its nighttime glow acts like a beacon in Atwater Park.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: Explain the Description of this artwork, Spillover II.

Spillover is composed of steel letters that are tack welded together. In Plensa's words, "The letters that form the open framework suggest that language is our primary tool for experiencing the world and each other, and that we are, essentially, both limited and empowered by this abstract means of translating our experiences." The work, on a concrete base at the intersection of Capitol Drive and Lake Drive, is situated with the figure looking out onto Lake Michigan. Illuminated from within, its nighttime glow acts like a beacon in Atwater Park.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: How does Spillover II explain its Description?

Spillover is composed of steel letters that are tack welded together. In Plensa's words, "The letters that form the open framework suggest that language is our primary tool for experiencing the world and each other, and that we are, essentially, both limited and empowered by this abstract means of translating our experiences." The work, on a concrete base at the intersection of Capitol Drive and Lake Drive, is situated with the figure looking out onto Lake Michigan. Illuminated from within, its nighttime glow acts like a beacon in Atwater Park.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: In Spillover II, how is the Description discussed?

Spillover is composed of steel letters that are tack welded together. In Plensa's words, "The letters that form the open framework suggest that language is our primary tool for experiencing the world and each other, and that we are, essentially, both limited and empowered by this abstract means of translating our experiences." The work, on a concrete base at the intersection of Capitol Drive and Lake Drive, is situated with the figure looking out onto Lake Michigan. Illuminated from within, its nighttime glow acts like a beacon in Atwater Park.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: Focus on Spillover II and explain the History.

Spillover is the first artwork acquired as part of the Village of Shorewood's public art initiative, begun in 2001 by the Shorewood Public Art Committee, a subcommittee of the Community Development Authority and Public Improvements Committee. Russell Bowman, former director of the Milwaukee Art Museum and current Chicago art consultant, assisted the committee in choosing Plensa's work. Plensa is best known in the American Midwest for his Crown Fountain in Chicago's Millennium Park.Spillover was chosen from nearly 100 other artists' works because it seemed the most appropriate for the location. Shorewood Village president Guy Johnson described it as a "wonderful gift (that) has given us an unprecedented and extraordinary opportunity to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Shorewood".Jaume Plensa was present at the sculpture's dedication in September 2010. He thanked Shorewood for giving one of his "children" a beautiful home, and expressed satisfaction that his artwork was placed near Lake Michigan, where it could engage in a dialogue with its site. "One can see the influences of northern Spain of Plensa's aesthetic," wrote Debra Brehmer in the Wisconsin Gazette. "Like his fellow countrymen, Salvador Dalí, Pablo Picasso, Antoni Gaudi, and Joan Miró, there is a playful humanism and a commitment to biomorphic, inventive form infused with an unabashed romanticism."The work investigates the connection between art and nature while also referencing the letter as the original component of poetry. It has also been suggested that this paradoxical sculpture, which appears both transparent and solid, implies that "we are hollow men". Visitors to the park are often observed interacting with the sculpture, apparently feeling a connection to its human form, and enjoying how the form changes as one walks around it.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: Explain the History of this artwork, Spillover II.

Spillover is the first artwork acquired as part of the Village of Shorewood's public art initiative, begun in 2001 by the Shorewood Public Art Committee, a subcommittee of the Community Development Authority and Public Improvements Committee. Russell Bowman, former director of the Milwaukee Art Museum and current Chicago art consultant, assisted the committee in choosing Plensa's work. Plensa is best known in the American Midwest for his Crown Fountain in Chicago's Millennium Park.Spillover was chosen from nearly 100 other artists' works because it seemed the most appropriate for the location. Shorewood Village president Guy Johnson described it as a "wonderful gift (that) has given us an unprecedented and extraordinary opportunity to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Shorewood".Jaume Plensa was present at the sculpture's dedication in September 2010. He thanked Shorewood for giving one of his "children" a beautiful home, and expressed satisfaction that his artwork was placed near Lake Michigan, where it could engage in a dialogue with its site. "One can see the influences of northern Spain of Plensa's aesthetic," wrote Debra Brehmer in the Wisconsin Gazette. "Like his fellow countrymen, Salvador Dalí, Pablo Picasso, Antoni Gaudi, and Joan Miró, there is a playful humanism and a commitment to biomorphic, inventive form infused with an unabashed romanticism."The work investigates the connection between art and nature while also referencing the letter as the original component of poetry. It has also been suggested that this paradoxical sculpture, which appears both transparent and solid, implies that "we are hollow men". Visitors to the park are often observed interacting with the sculpture, apparently feeling a connection to its human form, and enjoying how the form changes as one walks around it.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: How does Spillover II explain its History?

Spillover is the first artwork acquired as part of the Village of Shorewood's public art initiative, begun in 2001 by the Shorewood Public Art Committee, a subcommittee of the Community Development Authority and Public Improvements Committee. Russell Bowman, former director of the Milwaukee Art Museum and current Chicago art consultant, assisted the committee in choosing Plensa's work. Plensa is best known in the American Midwest for his Crown Fountain in Chicago's Millennium Park.Spillover was chosen from nearly 100 other artists' works because it seemed the most appropriate for the location. Shorewood Village president Guy Johnson described it as a "wonderful gift (that) has given us an unprecedented and extraordinary opportunity to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Shorewood".Jaume Plensa was present at the sculpture's dedication in September 2010. He thanked Shorewood for giving one of his "children" a beautiful home, and expressed satisfaction that his artwork was placed near Lake Michigan, where it could engage in a dialogue with its site. "One can see the influences of northern Spain of Plensa's aesthetic," wrote Debra Brehmer in the Wisconsin Gazette. "Like his fellow countrymen, Salvador Dalí, Pablo Picasso, Antoni Gaudi, and Joan Miró, there is a playful humanism and a commitment to biomorphic, inventive form infused with an unabashed romanticism."The work investigates the connection between art and nature while also referencing the letter as the original component of poetry. It has also been suggested that this paradoxical sculpture, which appears both transparent and solid, implies that "we are hollow men". Visitors to the park are often observed interacting with the sculpture, apparently feeling a connection to its human form, and enjoying how the form changes as one walks around it.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: In Spillover II, how is the History discussed?

Spillover is the first artwork acquired as part of the Village of Shorewood's public art initiative, begun in 2001 by the Shorewood Public Art Committee, a subcommittee of the Community Development Authority and Public Improvements Committee. Russell Bowman, former director of the Milwaukee Art Museum and current Chicago art consultant, assisted the committee in choosing Plensa's work. Plensa is best known in the American Midwest for his Crown Fountain in Chicago's Millennium Park.Spillover was chosen from nearly 100 other artists' works because it seemed the most appropriate for the location. Shorewood Village president Guy Johnson described it as a "wonderful gift (that) has given us an unprecedented and extraordinary opportunity to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Shorewood".Jaume Plensa was present at the sculpture's dedication in September 2010. He thanked Shorewood for giving one of his "children" a beautiful home, and expressed satisfaction that his artwork was placed near Lake Michigan, where it could engage in a dialogue with its site. "One can see the influences of northern Spain of Plensa's aesthetic," wrote Debra Brehmer in the Wisconsin Gazette. "Like his fellow countrymen, Salvador Dalí, Pablo Picasso, Antoni Gaudi, and Joan Miró, there is a playful humanism and a commitment to biomorphic, inventive form infused with an unabashed romanticism."The work investigates the connection between art and nature while also referencing the letter as the original component of poetry. It has also been suggested that this paradoxical sculpture, which appears both transparent and solid, implies that "we are hollow men". Visitors to the park are often observed interacting with the sculpture, apparently feeling a connection to its human form, and enjoying how the form changes as one walks around it.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: In the context of Spillover II, explain the Acquisition and the History.

The acquisition of Spillover was primarily enabled by an anonymous $350,000 contribution. It was additionally supported by the Shorewood Foundation, Shorewood Men's Club, Village of Shorewood Marketing Program, and the Village of Shorewood.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: Explain the Acquisition about the History of this artwork, Spillover II.

The acquisition of Spillover was primarily enabled by an anonymous $350,000 contribution. It was additionally supported by the Shorewood Foundation, Shorewood Men's Club, Village of Shorewood Marketing Program, and the Village of Shorewood.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: In Spillover II, how is the Acquisition of the History explained?

The acquisition of Spillover was primarily enabled by an anonymous $350,000 contribution. It was additionally supported by the Shorewood Foundation, Shorewood Men's Club, Village of Shorewood Marketing Program, and the Village of Shorewood.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the Acquisition in Spillover II's History.

The acquisition of Spillover was primarily enabled by an anonymous $350,000 contribution. It was additionally supported by the Shorewood Foundation, Shorewood Men's Club, Village of Shorewood Marketing Program, and the Village of Shorewood.

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: Focus on Spillover II and explain the Allegations of anti-Semitic content.

On November 14, 2015, the statue was temporarily removed from Atwater Park after a New Jersey blogger alleged that it contained the phrases FRY BAD JEW, DEAD JEW and CHEAP JEW.Plensa informed the people of Shorewood that he preferred to adjust the letters to avoid any future misinterpretations of his work. The sculpture was voluntarily modified at the Richard Gray Art Gallery by Plensa's representatives, who replaced a letter "E" with the letter "B". The sculpture was then returned to Atwater Park on Saturday, January 16, 2016

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: Explain the Allegations of anti-Semitic content of this artwork, Spillover II.

On November 14, 2015, the statue was temporarily removed from Atwater Park after a New Jersey blogger alleged that it contained the phrases FRY BAD JEW, DEAD JEW and CHEAP JEW.Plensa informed the people of Shorewood that he preferred to adjust the letters to avoid any future misinterpretations of his work. The sculpture was voluntarily modified at the Richard Gray Art Gallery by Plensa's representatives, who replaced a letter "E" with the letter "B". The sculpture was then returned to Atwater Park on Saturday, January 16, 2016

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: How does Spillover II explain its Allegations of anti-Semitic content?

On November 14, 2015, the statue was temporarily removed from Atwater Park after a New Jersey blogger alleged that it contained the phrases FRY BAD JEW, DEAD JEW and CHEAP JEW.Plensa informed the people of Shorewood that he preferred to adjust the letters to avoid any future misinterpretations of his work. The sculpture was voluntarily modified at the Richard Gray Art Gallery by Plensa's representatives, who replaced a letter "E" with the letter "B". The sculpture was then returned to Atwater Park on Saturday, January 16, 2016

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Spillover II

Prompt: In Spillover II, how is the Allegations of anti-Semitic content discussed?

On November 14, 2015, the statue was temporarily removed from Atwater Park after a New Jersey blogger alleged that it contained the phrases FRY BAD JEW, DEAD JEW and CHEAP JEW.Plensa informed the people of Shorewood that he preferred to adjust the letters to avoid any future misinterpretations of his work. The sculpture was voluntarily modified at the Richard Gray Art Gallery by Plensa's representatives, who replaced a letter "E" with the letter "B". The sculpture was then returned to Atwater Park on Saturday, January 16, 2016

Category:2010 establishments in Wisconsin

Category:Tourist attractions in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Category:Outdoor sculptures in Milwaukee


Statue of Stephen F. Austin

Prompt: Focus on Statue of Stephen F. Austin and explain the abstract.

Stephen F. Austin is a statue of Stephen F. Austin by Elisabet Ney, originally modeled in 1893. Two carvings exist: one installed in 1903 in the Texas State Capitol, and the other installed in 1905 as one of the two statues from Texas in the National Statuary Hall Collection in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. In each case it is accompanied by a second statue, Sam Houston, also by Ney and produced in parallel.

United States Government Printing Office

Category:Monuments and memorials in Texas

Category:Monuments and memorials in Washington, D.C.

Category:Sculptures of men in Washington, D.C.

Category:National Statuary Hall Collection


Statue of Stephen F. Austin

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Statue of Stephen F. Austin.

Stephen F. Austin is a statue of Stephen F. Austin by Elisabet Ney, originally modeled in 1893. Two carvings exist: one installed in 1903 in the Texas State Capitol, and the other installed in 1905 as one of the two statues from Texas in the National Statuary Hall Collection in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. In each case it is accompanied by a second statue, Sam Houston, also by Ney and produced in parallel.

United States Government Printing Office

Category:Monuments and memorials in Texas

Category:Monuments and memorials in Washington, D.C.

Category:Sculptures of men in Washington, D.C.

Category:National Statuary Hall Collection


Statue of Stephen F. Austin

Prompt: How does Statue of Stephen F. Austin explain its abstract?

Stephen F. Austin is a statue of Stephen F. Austin by Elisabet Ney, originally modeled in 1893. Two carvings exist: one installed in 1903 in the Texas State Capitol, and the other installed in 1905 as one of the two statues from Texas in the National Statuary Hall Collection in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. In each case it is accompanied by a second statue, Sam Houston, also by Ney and produced in parallel.

United States Government Printing Office

Category:Monuments and memorials in Texas

Category:Monuments and memorials in Washington, D.C.

Category:Sculptures of men in Washington, D.C.

Category:National Statuary Hall Collection


Statue of Stephen F. Austin

Prompt: In Statue of Stephen F. Austin, how is the abstract discussed?

Stephen F. Austin is a statue of Stephen F. Austin by Elisabet Ney, originally modeled in 1893. Two carvings exist: one installed in 1903 in the Texas State Capitol, and the other installed in 1905 as one of the two statues from Texas in the National Statuary Hall Collection in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. In each case it is accompanied by a second statue, Sam Houston, also by Ney and produced in parallel.

United States Government Printing Office

Category:Monuments and memorials in Texas

Category:Monuments and memorials in Washington, D.C.

Category:Sculptures of men in Washington, D.C.

Category:National Statuary Hall Collection


Statue of Stephen F. Austin

Prompt: Focus on Statue of Stephen F. Austin and explain the History.

In early 1892, the Texas government was preparing materials for a building at the World's Columbian Exposition to be held the following year in Chicago. Texas Governor Oran Milo Roberts recommended that the women's commission charged with fundraising for the exhibit speak with Elisabet Ney, a German–American sculptor residing in Austin, Texas. After a meeting, Ney was invited to sculpt portrait statues of Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austin for the exhibit, though the commission had no funds to pay the artist for her work.: 86–87  Ney agreed and went to work first on the statue of Houston; she began work on Austin's statue in early 1893 and completed a plaster rendering of Austin by that fall.: 143 The statue of Austin was completed too late to be displayed in Chicago, but Ney and the women's commission intended to cut editions of the Houston and Austin statues in marble for permanent display in the Texas State Capitol.: 141–142  It took years to secure the necessary funding, but in 1901 the Texas Legislature appropriated the funds for the carving, and the two statues were unveiled in the Texas Capitol on January 19, 1903.: 93  An additional copy of each statue was cut for submission to the National Statuary Hall Collection and unveiled in the United States Capitol in 1905.

United States Government Printing Office

Category:Monuments and memorials in Texas

Category:Monuments and memorials in Washington, D.C.

Category:Sculptures of men in Washington, D.C.

Category:National Statuary Hall Collection


Statue of Stephen F. Austin

Prompt: Explain the History of this artwork, Statue of Stephen F. Austin.

In early 1892, the Texas government was preparing materials for a building at the World's Columbian Exposition to be held the following year in Chicago. Texas Governor Oran Milo Roberts recommended that the women's commission charged with fundraising for the exhibit speak with Elisabet Ney, a German–American sculptor residing in Austin, Texas. After a meeting, Ney was invited to sculpt portrait statues of Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austin for the exhibit, though the commission had no funds to pay the artist for her work.: 86–87  Ney agreed and went to work first on the statue of Houston; she began work on Austin's statue in early 1893 and completed a plaster rendering of Austin by that fall.: 143 The statue of Austin was completed too late to be displayed in Chicago, but Ney and the women's commission intended to cut editions of the Houston and Austin statues in marble for permanent display in the Texas State Capitol.: 141–142  It took years to secure the necessary funding, but in 1901 the Texas Legislature appropriated the funds for the carving, and the two statues were unveiled in the Texas Capitol on January 19, 1903.: 93  An additional copy of each statue was cut for submission to the National Statuary Hall Collection and unveiled in the United States Capitol in 1905.

United States Government Printing Office

Category:Monuments and memorials in Texas

Category:Monuments and memorials in Washington, D.C.

Category:Sculptures of men in Washington, D.C.

Category:National Statuary Hall Collection


Statue of Stephen F. Austin

Prompt: How does Statue of Stephen F. Austin explain its History?

In early 1892, the Texas government was preparing materials for a building at the World's Columbian Exposition to be held the following year in Chicago. Texas Governor Oran Milo Roberts recommended that the women's commission charged with fundraising for the exhibit speak with Elisabet Ney, a German–American sculptor residing in Austin, Texas. After a meeting, Ney was invited to sculpt portrait statues of Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austin for the exhibit, though the commission had no funds to pay the artist for her work.: 86–87  Ney agreed and went to work first on the statue of Houston; she began work on Austin's statue in early 1893 and completed a plaster rendering of Austin by that fall.: 143 The statue of Austin was completed too late to be displayed in Chicago, but Ney and the women's commission intended to cut editions of the Houston and Austin statues in marble for permanent display in the Texas State Capitol.: 141–142  It took years to secure the necessary funding, but in 1901 the Texas Legislature appropriated the funds for the carving, and the two statues were unveiled in the Texas Capitol on January 19, 1903.: 93  An additional copy of each statue was cut for submission to the National Statuary Hall Collection and unveiled in the United States Capitol in 1905.

United States Government Printing Office

Category:Monuments and memorials in Texas

Category:Monuments and memorials in Washington, D.C.

Category:Sculptures of men in Washington, D.C.

Category:National Statuary Hall Collection


Statue of Stephen F. Austin

Prompt: In Statue of Stephen F. Austin, how is the History discussed?

In early 1892, the Texas government was preparing materials for a building at the World's Columbian Exposition to be held the following year in Chicago. Texas Governor Oran Milo Roberts recommended that the women's commission charged with fundraising for the exhibit speak with Elisabet Ney, a German–American sculptor residing in Austin, Texas. After a meeting, Ney was invited to sculpt portrait statues of Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austin for the exhibit, though the commission had no funds to pay the artist for her work.: 86–87  Ney agreed and went to work first on the statue of Houston; she began work on Austin's statue in early 1893 and completed a plaster rendering of Austin by that fall.: 143 The statue of Austin was completed too late to be displayed in Chicago, but Ney and the women's commission intended to cut editions of the Houston and Austin statues in marble for permanent display in the Texas State Capitol.: 141–142  It took years to secure the necessary funding, but in 1901 the Texas Legislature appropriated the funds for the carving, and the two statues were unveiled in the Texas Capitol on January 19, 1903.: 93  An additional copy of each statue was cut for submission to the National Statuary Hall Collection and unveiled in the United States Capitol in 1905.

United States Government Printing Office

Category:Monuments and memorials in Texas

Category:Monuments and memorials in Washington, D.C.

Category:Sculptures of men in Washington, D.C.

Category:National Statuary Hall Collection