A Conversation with Oscar Wilde

Prompt: In A Conversation with Oscar Wilde, how is the Creation and unveiling discussed?

The memorial was first suggested during the 1980s and early 1990s by fans of Wilde's work, including Derek Jarman. Following Jarman's death in 1994, a committee called "A Statue for Oscar Wilde" was formed to bring a tribute to fruition. The committee, led by Jeremy Isaacs, included the actors Dame Judi Dench and Sir Ian McKellen, and the poet Seamus Heaney.From sketches submitted by twelve artists, six were chosen to create maquette models of their concepts. Maggi Hambling's "witty and amusing" work was chosen for the memorial. The work is inscribed with a quotation from his play Lady Windermere's Fan: "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars". Hundreds of individual donors and foundations contributed funds for the project.The statue is located in central London between Trafalgar Square and Charing Cross Station, behind St Martin's in the Fields church. The unveiling was on 30 November 1998. It was preceded in 1997 by an exhibition at the nearby National Portrait Gallery, bringing together drawings, models and maquettes. The London sculpture was just pipped to the post by the Dublin triptych Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture, designed and made by Danny Osborne and unveiled in Wilde's birthplace, Merrion Square, in 1997.

Category:Monuments and memorials in London

Category:Sculptures of men in the United Kingdom

File:A Conversation with Oscar Wilde - inscription.jpg

Category:Bronze sculptures in the City of Westminster

The inscription quoting from ''[[Lady Windermere's Fan

Category:Cultural depictions of Oscar Wilde

Category:Granite sculptures in the United Kingdom


A Conversation with Oscar Wilde

Prompt: Focus on A Conversation with Oscar Wilde and explain the Reception.

A Conversation with Oscar Wilde, in which Wilde is depicted laughing and smoking, caused considerable friction. (The work was depicted in Smoke: a global history of smoking.)Tom Lubbock, chief art critic of The Independent, while acknowledging the need for a memorial in London to Wilde, and commending the project for its "real and proper Victorian public spirit", thoroughly condemned the piece itself, in design and execution, comparing it to a Madame Tussauds waxwork.We have nothing of the nerve, the folly, the ruin, the glory. We have nothing for history – only the whimsical notion of us chatting cheerfully with this anodyne figment.He compared the "macaroni tangle of undulating tubey strands" to a sort of cadaver tomb called transi, part of medieval tomb sculpture depicting rotting flesh and the resulting worms, concluding that ultimately the sculpture was not about Wilde or the viewing public, but a reflection of Hambling herself. Isaacs used his right of reply to point out that the sculpture "already evokes more favourable response from the public than any other statue I know in London, with the possible exception of Peter Pan".Charles Spencer, chief drama critic of The Telegraph, while professing his liking for the artist as a person, wrote how he loathed her sculptures. With respect to A Conversation, he wrote: Hideous is too gentle a word to describe it. [...] The idea is quite witty [...] but the representation of Wilde is loathsome. He looks even worse than the picture of Dorian Gray in the attic, sporting Medusa-like snakes of hair and a vile, degenerate grin. Even Wilde, the master of the aphorism, might have been stumped for words to describe it.The sculpture was one of five works or events considered in The Resurrection of Oscar Wilde: A Cultural Afterlife, along with "the consecration of a window in Wilde's honour in Poet's Corner, Peter Tatchell's campaign for a Royal Pardon, the 1997 film Wilde [...] and the public gatherings on the centenary of his death."Both Lubbock and Spencer pointedly advised their readers not to vandalise the sculpture. However, the cigarette has been repeatedly removed by members of the public (sawn off and replaced, according to Philip Ardagh) in what has been called "the most frequent act of vandalism/veneration done to a public statue in London".

Category:Monuments and memorials in London

Category:Sculptures of men in the United Kingdom

File:A Conversation with Oscar Wilde - inscription.jpg

Category:Bronze sculptures in the City of Westminster

The inscription quoting from ''[[Lady Windermere's Fan

Category:Cultural depictions of Oscar Wilde

Category:Granite sculptures in the United Kingdom


A Conversation with Oscar Wilde

Prompt: Explain the Reception of this artwork, A Conversation with Oscar Wilde.

A Conversation with Oscar Wilde, in which Wilde is depicted laughing and smoking, caused considerable friction. (The work was depicted in Smoke: a global history of smoking.)Tom Lubbock, chief art critic of The Independent, while acknowledging the need for a memorial in London to Wilde, and commending the project for its "real and proper Victorian public spirit", thoroughly condemned the piece itself, in design and execution, comparing it to a Madame Tussauds waxwork.We have nothing of the nerve, the folly, the ruin, the glory. We have nothing for history – only the whimsical notion of us chatting cheerfully with this anodyne figment.He compared the "macaroni tangle of undulating tubey strands" to a sort of cadaver tomb called transi, part of medieval tomb sculpture depicting rotting flesh and the resulting worms, concluding that ultimately the sculpture was not about Wilde or the viewing public, but a reflection of Hambling herself. Isaacs used his right of reply to point out that the sculpture "already evokes more favourable response from the public than any other statue I know in London, with the possible exception of Peter Pan".Charles Spencer, chief drama critic of The Telegraph, while professing his liking for the artist as a person, wrote how he loathed her sculptures. With respect to A Conversation, he wrote: Hideous is too gentle a word to describe it. [...] The idea is quite witty [...] but the representation of Wilde is loathsome. He looks even worse than the picture of Dorian Gray in the attic, sporting Medusa-like snakes of hair and a vile, degenerate grin. Even Wilde, the master of the aphorism, might have been stumped for words to describe it.The sculpture was one of five works or events considered in The Resurrection of Oscar Wilde: A Cultural Afterlife, along with "the consecration of a window in Wilde's honour in Poet's Corner, Peter Tatchell's campaign for a Royal Pardon, the 1997 film Wilde [...] and the public gatherings on the centenary of his death."Both Lubbock and Spencer pointedly advised their readers not to vandalise the sculpture. However, the cigarette has been repeatedly removed by members of the public (sawn off and replaced, according to Philip Ardagh) in what has been called "the most frequent act of vandalism/veneration done to a public statue in London".

Category:Monuments and memorials in London

Category:Sculptures of men in the United Kingdom

File:A Conversation with Oscar Wilde - inscription.jpg

Category:Bronze sculptures in the City of Westminster

The inscription quoting from ''[[Lady Windermere's Fan

Category:Cultural depictions of Oscar Wilde

Category:Granite sculptures in the United Kingdom


A Conversation with Oscar Wilde

Prompt: How does A Conversation with Oscar Wilde explain its Reception?

A Conversation with Oscar Wilde, in which Wilde is depicted laughing and smoking, caused considerable friction. (The work was depicted in Smoke: a global history of smoking.)Tom Lubbock, chief art critic of The Independent, while acknowledging the need for a memorial in London to Wilde, and commending the project for its "real and proper Victorian public spirit", thoroughly condemned the piece itself, in design and execution, comparing it to a Madame Tussauds waxwork.We have nothing of the nerve, the folly, the ruin, the glory. We have nothing for history – only the whimsical notion of us chatting cheerfully with this anodyne figment.He compared the "macaroni tangle of undulating tubey strands" to a sort of cadaver tomb called transi, part of medieval tomb sculpture depicting rotting flesh and the resulting worms, concluding that ultimately the sculpture was not about Wilde or the viewing public, but a reflection of Hambling herself. Isaacs used his right of reply to point out that the sculpture "already evokes more favourable response from the public than any other statue I know in London, with the possible exception of Peter Pan".Charles Spencer, chief drama critic of The Telegraph, while professing his liking for the artist as a person, wrote how he loathed her sculptures. With respect to A Conversation, he wrote: Hideous is too gentle a word to describe it. [...] The idea is quite witty [...] but the representation of Wilde is loathsome. He looks even worse than the picture of Dorian Gray in the attic, sporting Medusa-like snakes of hair and a vile, degenerate grin. Even Wilde, the master of the aphorism, might have been stumped for words to describe it.The sculpture was one of five works or events considered in The Resurrection of Oscar Wilde: A Cultural Afterlife, along with "the consecration of a window in Wilde's honour in Poet's Corner, Peter Tatchell's campaign for a Royal Pardon, the 1997 film Wilde [...] and the public gatherings on the centenary of his death."Both Lubbock and Spencer pointedly advised their readers not to vandalise the sculpture. However, the cigarette has been repeatedly removed by members of the public (sawn off and replaced, according to Philip Ardagh) in what has been called "the most frequent act of vandalism/veneration done to a public statue in London".

Category:Monuments and memorials in London

Category:Sculptures of men in the United Kingdom

File:A Conversation with Oscar Wilde - inscription.jpg

Category:Bronze sculptures in the City of Westminster

The inscription quoting from ''[[Lady Windermere's Fan

Category:Cultural depictions of Oscar Wilde

Category:Granite sculptures in the United Kingdom


A Conversation with Oscar Wilde

Prompt: In A Conversation with Oscar Wilde, how is the Reception discussed?

A Conversation with Oscar Wilde, in which Wilde is depicted laughing and smoking, caused considerable friction. (The work was depicted in Smoke: a global history of smoking.)Tom Lubbock, chief art critic of The Independent, while acknowledging the need for a memorial in London to Wilde, and commending the project for its "real and proper Victorian public spirit", thoroughly condemned the piece itself, in design and execution, comparing it to a Madame Tussauds waxwork.We have nothing of the nerve, the folly, the ruin, the glory. We have nothing for history – only the whimsical notion of us chatting cheerfully with this anodyne figment.He compared the "macaroni tangle of undulating tubey strands" to a sort of cadaver tomb called transi, part of medieval tomb sculpture depicting rotting flesh and the resulting worms, concluding that ultimately the sculpture was not about Wilde or the viewing public, but a reflection of Hambling herself. Isaacs used his right of reply to point out that the sculpture "already evokes more favourable response from the public than any other statue I know in London, with the possible exception of Peter Pan".Charles Spencer, chief drama critic of The Telegraph, while professing his liking for the artist as a person, wrote how he loathed her sculptures. With respect to A Conversation, he wrote: Hideous is too gentle a word to describe it. [...] The idea is quite witty [...] but the representation of Wilde is loathsome. He looks even worse than the picture of Dorian Gray in the attic, sporting Medusa-like snakes of hair and a vile, degenerate grin. Even Wilde, the master of the aphorism, might have been stumped for words to describe it.The sculpture was one of five works or events considered in The Resurrection of Oscar Wilde: A Cultural Afterlife, along with "the consecration of a window in Wilde's honour in Poet's Corner, Peter Tatchell's campaign for a Royal Pardon, the 1997 film Wilde [...] and the public gatherings on the centenary of his death."Both Lubbock and Spencer pointedly advised their readers not to vandalise the sculpture. However, the cigarette has been repeatedly removed by members of the public (sawn off and replaced, according to Philip Ardagh) in what has been called "the most frequent act of vandalism/veneration done to a public statue in London".

Category:Monuments and memorials in London

Category:Sculptures of men in the United Kingdom

File:A Conversation with Oscar Wilde - inscription.jpg

Category:Bronze sculptures in the City of Westminster

The inscription quoting from ''[[Lady Windermere's Fan

Category:Cultural depictions of Oscar Wilde

Category:Granite sculptures in the United Kingdom


Madonna Litta

Prompt: Focus on Madonna Litta and explain the abstract.

The Madonna Litta is a late 15th-century painting, by Leonardo da Vinci, in the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg. It depicts the Virgin Mary breastfeeding the Christ child, a devotional subject known as the Madonna lactans. The figures are set in a dark interior with two arched openings, as in Leonardo's earlier Madonna of the Carnation, and a mountainous landscape in aerial perspective can be seen beyond. In his left hand Christ holds a goldfinch, which is symbolic of his future Passion.Scholarly opinion is divided on the work's attribution, with some believing it to be the work of a pupil of Leonardo such as Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio or Marco d'Oggiono; the Hermitage Museum, however, considers the painting to be an autograph work by Leonardo. The painting takes its name from the House of Litta, a Milanese noble family in whose collection it was for much of the nineteenth century.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Madonna Litta.

The Madonna Litta is a late 15th-century painting, by Leonardo da Vinci, in the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg. It depicts the Virgin Mary breastfeeding the Christ child, a devotional subject known as the Madonna lactans. The figures are set in a dark interior with two arched openings, as in Leonardo's earlier Madonna of the Carnation, and a mountainous landscape in aerial perspective can be seen beyond. In his left hand Christ holds a goldfinch, which is symbolic of his future Passion.Scholarly opinion is divided on the work's attribution, with some believing it to be the work of a pupil of Leonardo such as Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio or Marco d'Oggiono; the Hermitage Museum, however, considers the painting to be an autograph work by Leonardo. The painting takes its name from the House of Litta, a Milanese noble family in whose collection it was for much of the nineteenth century.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: How does Madonna Litta explain its abstract?

The Madonna Litta is a late 15th-century painting, by Leonardo da Vinci, in the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg. It depicts the Virgin Mary breastfeeding the Christ child, a devotional subject known as the Madonna lactans. The figures are set in a dark interior with two arched openings, as in Leonardo's earlier Madonna of the Carnation, and a mountainous landscape in aerial perspective can be seen beyond. In his left hand Christ holds a goldfinch, which is symbolic of his future Passion.Scholarly opinion is divided on the work's attribution, with some believing it to be the work of a pupil of Leonardo such as Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio or Marco d'Oggiono; the Hermitage Museum, however, considers the painting to be an autograph work by Leonardo. The painting takes its name from the House of Litta, a Milanese noble family in whose collection it was for much of the nineteenth century.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: In Madonna Litta, how is the abstract discussed?

The Madonna Litta is a late 15th-century painting, by Leonardo da Vinci, in the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg. It depicts the Virgin Mary breastfeeding the Christ child, a devotional subject known as the Madonna lactans. The figures are set in a dark interior with two arched openings, as in Leonardo's earlier Madonna of the Carnation, and a mountainous landscape in aerial perspective can be seen beyond. In his left hand Christ holds a goldfinch, which is symbolic of his future Passion.Scholarly opinion is divided on the work's attribution, with some believing it to be the work of a pupil of Leonardo such as Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio or Marco d'Oggiono; the Hermitage Museum, however, considers the painting to be an autograph work by Leonardo. The painting takes its name from the House of Litta, a Milanese noble family in whose collection it was for much of the nineteenth century.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: Focus on Madonna Litta and explain the History.

The Madonna Litta might be one of the paintings of the Madonna and Child recorded in Leonardo's studio before or during his first Milanese period (c.1481–1483 to 1499). On a drawing in the Uffizi Leonardo noted that he had begun “two Virgin Maries” in late 1478 and an inventory of his studio written in 1482 (part of the Codex Atlanticus) again mentions two paintings of “Our Lady”. The second of these is, according to different interpretations, either noted as being “almost finished, in profile” or “finished, almost in profile”. The Virgin's head in the Madonna Litta could be described either way, and it has therefore been argued that the painting was begun in Leonardo's first Florentine period and left unfinished until it was later worked up by a pupil in Milan. Scientific analysis of the painting has, however, suggested that it was produced by only one artist.Several drawings have been identified as preparatory to the Madonna Litta. One, which is universally attributed to Leonardo, is a metalpoint drawing of a young woman's face in near profile, part of the Codex Vallardi in the Louvre. There is evidence that this sheet was used as an exemplum for teaching pupils in Leonardo’s workshop; on the reverse another artist has traced the outline of the face in pen and ink, a technique Leonardo himself used when developing compositions. Further evidence of pupils copying the drawing comes in the form of a direct copy, by a rather uncertain draughtsman, on a sheet which was turned over and reused for a different drawing by another sixteenth-century artist; this is now in the Städel in Frankfurt.Two other drawings, in metalpoint with white lead highlights on blue prepared paper, are attributed to a follower of Leonardo, usually considered to be Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. One, a study for the Christ child's head, is in the Fondation Custodia in Paris; the other, in the Kupferstichkabinett in Berlin, is a drapery study for the Virgin's garments. These have been attributed to Boltraffio on the basis of the Berlin drawing's similarity to other drapery studies by the artist. It has been argued that the Paris and Berlin drawings are preparatory studies for the Madonna Litta rather than copies after it, as the drapery study shows more of the Virgin's right arm than the finished work, in which this is obscured by Christ's head. This suggests that the composition was partly pieced together from these studies.A further related drawing in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, attributed to Boltraffio, is of the Virgin's face in strict profile and does not resemble the finished painting in the Hermitage. It has been argued that this study might represent an earlier idea by a pupil for the composition of the Madonna Litta, which the master Leonardo then 'corrected' with the drawing in the Louvre.The painting was repainted by an artist other than Leonardo in Milan around 1495.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: Explain the History of this artwork, Madonna Litta.

The Madonna Litta might be one of the paintings of the Madonna and Child recorded in Leonardo's studio before or during his first Milanese period (c.1481–1483 to 1499). On a drawing in the Uffizi Leonardo noted that he had begun “two Virgin Maries” in late 1478 and an inventory of his studio written in 1482 (part of the Codex Atlanticus) again mentions two paintings of “Our Lady”. The second of these is, according to different interpretations, either noted as being “almost finished, in profile” or “finished, almost in profile”. The Virgin's head in the Madonna Litta could be described either way, and it has therefore been argued that the painting was begun in Leonardo's first Florentine period and left unfinished until it was later worked up by a pupil in Milan. Scientific analysis of the painting has, however, suggested that it was produced by only one artist.Several drawings have been identified as preparatory to the Madonna Litta. One, which is universally attributed to Leonardo, is a metalpoint drawing of a young woman's face in near profile, part of the Codex Vallardi in the Louvre. There is evidence that this sheet was used as an exemplum for teaching pupils in Leonardo’s workshop; on the reverse another artist has traced the outline of the face in pen and ink, a technique Leonardo himself used when developing compositions. Further evidence of pupils copying the drawing comes in the form of a direct copy, by a rather uncertain draughtsman, on a sheet which was turned over and reused for a different drawing by another sixteenth-century artist; this is now in the Städel in Frankfurt.Two other drawings, in metalpoint with white lead highlights on blue prepared paper, are attributed to a follower of Leonardo, usually considered to be Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. One, a study for the Christ child's head, is in the Fondation Custodia in Paris; the other, in the Kupferstichkabinett in Berlin, is a drapery study for the Virgin's garments. These have been attributed to Boltraffio on the basis of the Berlin drawing's similarity to other drapery studies by the artist. It has been argued that the Paris and Berlin drawings are preparatory studies for the Madonna Litta rather than copies after it, as the drapery study shows more of the Virgin's right arm than the finished work, in which this is obscured by Christ's head. This suggests that the composition was partly pieced together from these studies.A further related drawing in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, attributed to Boltraffio, is of the Virgin's face in strict profile and does not resemble the finished painting in the Hermitage. It has been argued that this study might represent an earlier idea by a pupil for the composition of the Madonna Litta, which the master Leonardo then 'corrected' with the drawing in the Louvre.The painting was repainted by an artist other than Leonardo in Milan around 1495.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: How does Madonna Litta explain its History?

The Madonna Litta might be one of the paintings of the Madonna and Child recorded in Leonardo's studio before or during his first Milanese period (c.1481–1483 to 1499). On a drawing in the Uffizi Leonardo noted that he had begun “two Virgin Maries” in late 1478 and an inventory of his studio written in 1482 (part of the Codex Atlanticus) again mentions two paintings of “Our Lady”. The second of these is, according to different interpretations, either noted as being “almost finished, in profile” or “finished, almost in profile”. The Virgin's head in the Madonna Litta could be described either way, and it has therefore been argued that the painting was begun in Leonardo's first Florentine period and left unfinished until it was later worked up by a pupil in Milan. Scientific analysis of the painting has, however, suggested that it was produced by only one artist.Several drawings have been identified as preparatory to the Madonna Litta. One, which is universally attributed to Leonardo, is a metalpoint drawing of a young woman's face in near profile, part of the Codex Vallardi in the Louvre. There is evidence that this sheet was used as an exemplum for teaching pupils in Leonardo’s workshop; on the reverse another artist has traced the outline of the face in pen and ink, a technique Leonardo himself used when developing compositions. Further evidence of pupils copying the drawing comes in the form of a direct copy, by a rather uncertain draughtsman, on a sheet which was turned over and reused for a different drawing by another sixteenth-century artist; this is now in the Städel in Frankfurt.Two other drawings, in metalpoint with white lead highlights on blue prepared paper, are attributed to a follower of Leonardo, usually considered to be Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. One, a study for the Christ child's head, is in the Fondation Custodia in Paris; the other, in the Kupferstichkabinett in Berlin, is a drapery study for the Virgin's garments. These have been attributed to Boltraffio on the basis of the Berlin drawing's similarity to other drapery studies by the artist. It has been argued that the Paris and Berlin drawings are preparatory studies for the Madonna Litta rather than copies after it, as the drapery study shows more of the Virgin's right arm than the finished work, in which this is obscured by Christ's head. This suggests that the composition was partly pieced together from these studies.A further related drawing in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, attributed to Boltraffio, is of the Virgin's face in strict profile and does not resemble the finished painting in the Hermitage. It has been argued that this study might represent an earlier idea by a pupil for the composition of the Madonna Litta, which the master Leonardo then 'corrected' with the drawing in the Louvre.The painting was repainted by an artist other than Leonardo in Milan around 1495.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: In Madonna Litta, how is the History discussed?

The Madonna Litta might be one of the paintings of the Madonna and Child recorded in Leonardo's studio before or during his first Milanese period (c.1481–1483 to 1499). On a drawing in the Uffizi Leonardo noted that he had begun “two Virgin Maries” in late 1478 and an inventory of his studio written in 1482 (part of the Codex Atlanticus) again mentions two paintings of “Our Lady”. The second of these is, according to different interpretations, either noted as being “almost finished, in profile” or “finished, almost in profile”. The Virgin's head in the Madonna Litta could be described either way, and it has therefore been argued that the painting was begun in Leonardo's first Florentine period and left unfinished until it was later worked up by a pupil in Milan. Scientific analysis of the painting has, however, suggested that it was produced by only one artist.Several drawings have been identified as preparatory to the Madonna Litta. One, which is universally attributed to Leonardo, is a metalpoint drawing of a young woman's face in near profile, part of the Codex Vallardi in the Louvre. There is evidence that this sheet was used as an exemplum for teaching pupils in Leonardo’s workshop; on the reverse another artist has traced the outline of the face in pen and ink, a technique Leonardo himself used when developing compositions. Further evidence of pupils copying the drawing comes in the form of a direct copy, by a rather uncertain draughtsman, on a sheet which was turned over and reused for a different drawing by another sixteenth-century artist; this is now in the Städel in Frankfurt.Two other drawings, in metalpoint with white lead highlights on blue prepared paper, are attributed to a follower of Leonardo, usually considered to be Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. One, a study for the Christ child's head, is in the Fondation Custodia in Paris; the other, in the Kupferstichkabinett in Berlin, is a drapery study for the Virgin's garments. These have been attributed to Boltraffio on the basis of the Berlin drawing's similarity to other drapery studies by the artist. It has been argued that the Paris and Berlin drawings are preparatory studies for the Madonna Litta rather than copies after it, as the drapery study shows more of the Virgin's right arm than the finished work, in which this is obscured by Christ's head. This suggests that the composition was partly pieced together from these studies.A further related drawing in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, attributed to Boltraffio, is of the Virgin's face in strict profile and does not resemble the finished painting in the Hermitage. It has been argued that this study might represent an earlier idea by a pupil for the composition of the Madonna Litta, which the master Leonardo then 'corrected' with the drawing in the Louvre.The painting was repainted by an artist other than Leonardo in Milan around 1495.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: In the context of Madonna Litta, explain the Provenance and the History.

It has been speculated that Leonardo might have taken the Madonna Litta with him to Venice in March 1500, as the diarist Marcantonio Michiel apparently recorded its presence in the Ca' Contarini in that city in 1543:There is a little picture, of a foot or a little more, of an Our Lady, half length, who gives milk to the little boy, coloured by the hand of Leonardo da Vinci, a work of great power and highly finished.The earliest print of the composition is Venetian, by an artist in the circle of Zoan Andrea, and at least one painted copy by the Venetian school is known, in the Museo di Castelvecchio in Verona.In 1784, the earliest secure date in its provenance, the painting was bought by Prince Alberico XII di Belgioioso from one Giuseppe Ro. After Belgioioso's death in 1813 it passed into the collection of the Litta family, from whom it takes its current name. In 1865 the Russian Tsar Alexander II acquired the panel from Count Antonio Litta, quondam minister to Saint Petersburg, for the Hermitage Museum, where it has been exhibited to this day. Upon acquiring the painting the Hermitage had it transferred from wood to canvas, when it was again repainted.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: Explain the Provenance about the History of this artwork, Madonna Litta.

It has been speculated that Leonardo might have taken the Madonna Litta with him to Venice in March 1500, as the diarist Marcantonio Michiel apparently recorded its presence in the Ca' Contarini in that city in 1543:There is a little picture, of a foot or a little more, of an Our Lady, half length, who gives milk to the little boy, coloured by the hand of Leonardo da Vinci, a work of great power and highly finished.The earliest print of the composition is Venetian, by an artist in the circle of Zoan Andrea, and at least one painted copy by the Venetian school is known, in the Museo di Castelvecchio in Verona.In 1784, the earliest secure date in its provenance, the painting was bought by Prince Alberico XII di Belgioioso from one Giuseppe Ro. After Belgioioso's death in 1813 it passed into the collection of the Litta family, from whom it takes its current name. In 1865 the Russian Tsar Alexander II acquired the panel from Count Antonio Litta, quondam minister to Saint Petersburg, for the Hermitage Museum, where it has been exhibited to this day. Upon acquiring the painting the Hermitage had it transferred from wood to canvas, when it was again repainted.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: In Madonna Litta, how is the Provenance of the History explained?

It has been speculated that Leonardo might have taken the Madonna Litta with him to Venice in March 1500, as the diarist Marcantonio Michiel apparently recorded its presence in the Ca' Contarini in that city in 1543:There is a little picture, of a foot or a little more, of an Our Lady, half length, who gives milk to the little boy, coloured by the hand of Leonardo da Vinci, a work of great power and highly finished.The earliest print of the composition is Venetian, by an artist in the circle of Zoan Andrea, and at least one painted copy by the Venetian school is known, in the Museo di Castelvecchio in Verona.In 1784, the earliest secure date in its provenance, the painting was bought by Prince Alberico XII di Belgioioso from one Giuseppe Ro. After Belgioioso's death in 1813 it passed into the collection of the Litta family, from whom it takes its current name. In 1865 the Russian Tsar Alexander II acquired the panel from Count Antonio Litta, quondam minister to Saint Petersburg, for the Hermitage Museum, where it has been exhibited to this day. Upon acquiring the painting the Hermitage had it transferred from wood to canvas, when it was again repainted.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the Provenance in Madonna Litta's History.

It has been speculated that Leonardo might have taken the Madonna Litta with him to Venice in March 1500, as the diarist Marcantonio Michiel apparently recorded its presence in the Ca' Contarini in that city in 1543:There is a little picture, of a foot or a little more, of an Our Lady, half length, who gives milk to the little boy, coloured by the hand of Leonardo da Vinci, a work of great power and highly finished.The earliest print of the composition is Venetian, by an artist in the circle of Zoan Andrea, and at least one painted copy by the Venetian school is known, in the Museo di Castelvecchio in Verona.In 1784, the earliest secure date in its provenance, the painting was bought by Prince Alberico XII di Belgioioso from one Giuseppe Ro. After Belgioioso's death in 1813 it passed into the collection of the Litta family, from whom it takes its current name. In 1865 the Russian Tsar Alexander II acquired the panel from Count Antonio Litta, quondam minister to Saint Petersburg, for the Hermitage Museum, where it has been exhibited to this day. Upon acquiring the painting the Hermitage had it transferred from wood to canvas, when it was again repainted.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: Focus on Madonna Litta and explain the Attribution.

That the painting was regarded in Leonardo's lifetime as his work is suggested by the large number of copies made of it. A popular candidate for authorship is Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. David Alan Brown argues that Marco d'Oggiono was responsible for the Madonna Litta as its composition is reflected in his later works, whereas it is not in those of Boltraffio. In the major exhibition on Leonardo's first Milanese period held at the National Gallery in London in 2011–12 the painting was attributed to Leonardo, but art historian Martin Kemp has remarked that this was "presumably a condition of the loan".Kemp said in 2017 that he regarded the painting as a Boltraffio.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: Explain the Attribution of this artwork, Madonna Litta.

That the painting was regarded in Leonardo's lifetime as his work is suggested by the large number of copies made of it. A popular candidate for authorship is Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. David Alan Brown argues that Marco d'Oggiono was responsible for the Madonna Litta as its composition is reflected in his later works, whereas it is not in those of Boltraffio. In the major exhibition on Leonardo's first Milanese period held at the National Gallery in London in 2011–12 the painting was attributed to Leonardo, but art historian Martin Kemp has remarked that this was "presumably a condition of the loan".Kemp said in 2017 that he regarded the painting as a Boltraffio.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: How does Madonna Litta explain its Attribution?

That the painting was regarded in Leonardo's lifetime as his work is suggested by the large number of copies made of it. A popular candidate for authorship is Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. David Alan Brown argues that Marco d'Oggiono was responsible for the Madonna Litta as its composition is reflected in his later works, whereas it is not in those of Boltraffio. In the major exhibition on Leonardo's first Milanese period held at the National Gallery in London in 2011–12 the painting was attributed to Leonardo, but art historian Martin Kemp has remarked that this was "presumably a condition of the loan".Kemp said in 2017 that he regarded the painting as a Boltraffio.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Madonna Litta

Prompt: In Madonna Litta, how is the Attribution discussed?

That the painting was regarded in Leonardo's lifetime as his work is suggested by the large number of copies made of it. A popular candidate for authorship is Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio. David Alan Brown argues that Marco d'Oggiono was responsible for the Madonna Litta as its composition is reflected in his later works, whereas it is not in those of Boltraffio. In the major exhibition on Leonardo's first Milanese period held at the National Gallery in London in 2011–12 the painting was attributed to Leonardo, but art historian Martin Kemp has remarked that this was "presumably a condition of the loan".Kemp said in 2017 that he regarded the painting as a Boltraffio.

File:Léonard de Vinci - Codex Vallardi 2376 r.jpg

Category:Paintings in the Hermitage Museum

Attributed to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, ''Head of a woman in profile facing left'' (1490–1500). 13.2 × 10.2 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

pages=153, 185}}</ref> Metalpoint heightened with white lead on grey prepared paper, 17.9 × 16.8 cm. Louvre, Cabinet des dessins, Codex Vallardi 2376 [[recto and verso

Leonardo da Vinci, ''Head of a young woman in near profile'' (c. 1480).<ref name=time>{{cite book

File:The Head of a Woman in Profile Facing Left MET DP810249.jpg

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Leonardo da Vinci


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: Focus on Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series) and explain the abstract.

Charing Cross Bridge is a series of oil paintings by French artist Claude Monet. The paintings depict a misty, impressionist Charing Cross Bridge in London, England. Monet worked on the series from 1899 to 1905, creating a total of 37 paintings depicting the bridge.While all of the paintings in the series depict the same bridge, each has unique qualities. For instance, Monet uses different color combinations to portray different atmospheric conditions. In some paintings, Monet includes details such as trains, clock towers, and boats, but omits such features in others.Today, the Charing Cross Bridge paintings are scattered in museums around the world. These include the Art Institute of Chicago, the Baltimore Museum of Art, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid.

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series).

Charing Cross Bridge is a series of oil paintings by French artist Claude Monet. The paintings depict a misty, impressionist Charing Cross Bridge in London, England. Monet worked on the series from 1899 to 1905, creating a total of 37 paintings depicting the bridge.While all of the paintings in the series depict the same bridge, each has unique qualities. For instance, Monet uses different color combinations to portray different atmospheric conditions. In some paintings, Monet includes details such as trains, clock towers, and boats, but omits such features in others.Today, the Charing Cross Bridge paintings are scattered in museums around the world. These include the Art Institute of Chicago, the Baltimore Museum of Art, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid.

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: How does Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series) explain its abstract?

Charing Cross Bridge is a series of oil paintings by French artist Claude Monet. The paintings depict a misty, impressionist Charing Cross Bridge in London, England. Monet worked on the series from 1899 to 1905, creating a total of 37 paintings depicting the bridge.While all of the paintings in the series depict the same bridge, each has unique qualities. For instance, Monet uses different color combinations to portray different atmospheric conditions. In some paintings, Monet includes details such as trains, clock towers, and boats, but omits such features in others.Today, the Charing Cross Bridge paintings are scattered in museums around the world. These include the Art Institute of Chicago, the Baltimore Museum of Art, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid.

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: In Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series), how is the abstract discussed?

Charing Cross Bridge is a series of oil paintings by French artist Claude Monet. The paintings depict a misty, impressionist Charing Cross Bridge in London, England. Monet worked on the series from 1899 to 1905, creating a total of 37 paintings depicting the bridge.While all of the paintings in the series depict the same bridge, each has unique qualities. For instance, Monet uses different color combinations to portray different atmospheric conditions. In some paintings, Monet includes details such as trains, clock towers, and boats, but omits such features in others.Today, the Charing Cross Bridge paintings are scattered in museums around the world. These include the Art Institute of Chicago, the Baltimore Museum of Art, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid.

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: Focus on Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series) and explain the Context.

Under exile during the Franco-Prussian War, Monet travelled to London for the first time in 1870. He became enthralled with the city, and vowed to return to it someday. Monet's fascination with London lay primarily in its fogs, a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution. Writers hypothesize that Monet was also inspired by contemporaries J. M. W. Turner and James Abbott McNeill Whistler, who were similarly fascinated by London's atmosphere. Thus, in 1899, Monet returned to London and rented a room in the Savoy Hotel, which offered an extensive viewpoint from which to begin his series of the city.Between 1899 and 1905, Monet periodically travelled to London to work on the series. He completed 37 paintings of the Charing Cross Bridge in total. In addition to painting the bridge, Monet painted other landmarks, such as the Houses of Parliament and Waterloo Bridge. While Monet began all of the paintings in London, he completed many of them in his studio in Giverny, France. As a result, some critics question whether the paintings are completely accurate. On the other hand, recent analyses of solar positioning report that Monet's paintings "contain elements of accurate observation and may potentially be considered as a proxy indicator for the Victorian smogs and atmospheric states they depict."

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: Explain the Context of this artwork, Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series).

Under exile during the Franco-Prussian War, Monet travelled to London for the first time in 1870. He became enthralled with the city, and vowed to return to it someday. Monet's fascination with London lay primarily in its fogs, a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution. Writers hypothesize that Monet was also inspired by contemporaries J. M. W. Turner and James Abbott McNeill Whistler, who were similarly fascinated by London's atmosphere. Thus, in 1899, Monet returned to London and rented a room in the Savoy Hotel, which offered an extensive viewpoint from which to begin his series of the city.Between 1899 and 1905, Monet periodically travelled to London to work on the series. He completed 37 paintings of the Charing Cross Bridge in total. In addition to painting the bridge, Monet painted other landmarks, such as the Houses of Parliament and Waterloo Bridge. While Monet began all of the paintings in London, he completed many of them in his studio in Giverny, France. As a result, some critics question whether the paintings are completely accurate. On the other hand, recent analyses of solar positioning report that Monet's paintings "contain elements of accurate observation and may potentially be considered as a proxy indicator for the Victorian smogs and atmospheric states they depict."

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: How does Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series) explain its Context?

Under exile during the Franco-Prussian War, Monet travelled to London for the first time in 1870. He became enthralled with the city, and vowed to return to it someday. Monet's fascination with London lay primarily in its fogs, a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution. Writers hypothesize that Monet was also inspired by contemporaries J. M. W. Turner and James Abbott McNeill Whistler, who were similarly fascinated by London's atmosphere. Thus, in 1899, Monet returned to London and rented a room in the Savoy Hotel, which offered an extensive viewpoint from which to begin his series of the city.Between 1899 and 1905, Monet periodically travelled to London to work on the series. He completed 37 paintings of the Charing Cross Bridge in total. In addition to painting the bridge, Monet painted other landmarks, such as the Houses of Parliament and Waterloo Bridge. While Monet began all of the paintings in London, he completed many of them in his studio in Giverny, France. As a result, some critics question whether the paintings are completely accurate. On the other hand, recent analyses of solar positioning report that Monet's paintings "contain elements of accurate observation and may potentially be considered as a proxy indicator for the Victorian smogs and atmospheric states they depict."

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: In Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series), how is the Context discussed?

Under exile during the Franco-Prussian War, Monet travelled to London for the first time in 1870. He became enthralled with the city, and vowed to return to it someday. Monet's fascination with London lay primarily in its fogs, a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution. Writers hypothesize that Monet was also inspired by contemporaries J. M. W. Turner and James Abbott McNeill Whistler, who were similarly fascinated by London's atmosphere. Thus, in 1899, Monet returned to London and rented a room in the Savoy Hotel, which offered an extensive viewpoint from which to begin his series of the city.Between 1899 and 1905, Monet periodically travelled to London to work on the series. He completed 37 paintings of the Charing Cross Bridge in total. In addition to painting the bridge, Monet painted other landmarks, such as the Houses of Parliament and Waterloo Bridge. While Monet began all of the paintings in London, he completed many of them in his studio in Giverny, France. As a result, some critics question whether the paintings are completely accurate. On the other hand, recent analyses of solar positioning report that Monet's paintings "contain elements of accurate observation and may potentially be considered as a proxy indicator for the Victorian smogs and atmospheric states they depict."

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: Focus on Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series) and explain the Description.

Each of the 37 paintings shares common features. Across the horizon, Monet portrays the Charing Cross Bridge using thin lines. Although the bridge is consistent across his paintings, it is not entirely representative of the actual bridge. John Sweetnam explains, "Comparisons with the actual bridge show that Monet compressed the solid and open parts of the deck into a mass that is both more consolidated and more extreme in its horizontally."Although the paintings share much in common, they also have notable differences. In certain versions, Monet includes an obscured train that blows smoke as it travels across the bridge. Some paintings depict a small boat in the bottom left corner; others depict Big Ben and the Victoria Tower in the top right corner. The towers are shadowy outlines at best, leading Rebecca Stern to suggest that Monet "obscures all record of standardized time in his series.”

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: Explain the Description of this artwork, Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series).

Each of the 37 paintings shares common features. Across the horizon, Monet portrays the Charing Cross Bridge using thin lines. Although the bridge is consistent across his paintings, it is not entirely representative of the actual bridge. John Sweetnam explains, "Comparisons with the actual bridge show that Monet compressed the solid and open parts of the deck into a mass that is both more consolidated and more extreme in its horizontally."Although the paintings share much in common, they also have notable differences. In certain versions, Monet includes an obscured train that blows smoke as it travels across the bridge. Some paintings depict a small boat in the bottom left corner; others depict Big Ben and the Victoria Tower in the top right corner. The towers are shadowy outlines at best, leading Rebecca Stern to suggest that Monet "obscures all record of standardized time in his series.”

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: How does Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series) explain its Description?

Each of the 37 paintings shares common features. Across the horizon, Monet portrays the Charing Cross Bridge using thin lines. Although the bridge is consistent across his paintings, it is not entirely representative of the actual bridge. John Sweetnam explains, "Comparisons with the actual bridge show that Monet compressed the solid and open parts of the deck into a mass that is both more consolidated and more extreme in its horizontally."Although the paintings share much in common, they also have notable differences. In certain versions, Monet includes an obscured train that blows smoke as it travels across the bridge. Some paintings depict a small boat in the bottom left corner; others depict Big Ben and the Victoria Tower in the top right corner. The towers are shadowy outlines at best, leading Rebecca Stern to suggest that Monet "obscures all record of standardized time in his series.”

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: In Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series), how is the Description discussed?

Each of the 37 paintings shares common features. Across the horizon, Monet portrays the Charing Cross Bridge using thin lines. Although the bridge is consistent across his paintings, it is not entirely representative of the actual bridge. John Sweetnam explains, "Comparisons with the actual bridge show that Monet compressed the solid and open parts of the deck into a mass that is both more consolidated and more extreme in its horizontally."Although the paintings share much in common, they also have notable differences. In certain versions, Monet includes an obscured train that blows smoke as it travels across the bridge. Some paintings depict a small boat in the bottom left corner; others depict Big Ben and the Victoria Tower in the top right corner. The towers are shadowy outlines at best, leading Rebecca Stern to suggest that Monet "obscures all record of standardized time in his series.”

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: Focus on Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series) and explain the Interpretation.

In this series, Monet represents the same subject in various conditions of light and atmosphere. Specifically, Monet was both captivated and challenged by the ways in which the ever-changing London fog affected the appearance of the bridge. In each of the paintings, Monet surrounds the bridge with enveloppe, a term that he himself defined as "the same light spread over everything." John House further describes this concept, writing that this "colored atmospheric cloak... allowed... [Monet] to give his paintings, both singly and when exhibited in groups, the internal coherence and unity he sought." Indeed, Monet experimented with ambience throughout his career, as seen in his Haystacks, Rouen Cathedral, and Water Lilies series.In addition to building upon his previous work, Monet builds upon the foundation laid by his contemporaries. Like Turner, Monet was intrigued by the interplay between subject matter and the outer, natural world. Sweetnam argues, "Charing Cross Bridge with its passing trains made up a subject in which subject content and light, as in Turner, were totally merged." Besides Turner's work, the Charing Cross Bridge series also parallels Whistler's work. In his Nocturne paintings, Whistler advocated for and succeeded in making London an acceptable subject of paintings. While Monet also sought to represent London in his paintings, he did not represent the city in the same muted colors that Whistler used. House views Monet's approach as "very different from that of his contemporaries... Monet's mists are suffused with delicate yet endlessly varied harmonies of colour."

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: Explain the Interpretation of this artwork, Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series).

In this series, Monet represents the same subject in various conditions of light and atmosphere. Specifically, Monet was both captivated and challenged by the ways in which the ever-changing London fog affected the appearance of the bridge. In each of the paintings, Monet surrounds the bridge with enveloppe, a term that he himself defined as "the same light spread over everything." John House further describes this concept, writing that this "colored atmospheric cloak... allowed... [Monet] to give his paintings, both singly and when exhibited in groups, the internal coherence and unity he sought." Indeed, Monet experimented with ambience throughout his career, as seen in his Haystacks, Rouen Cathedral, and Water Lilies series.In addition to building upon his previous work, Monet builds upon the foundation laid by his contemporaries. Like Turner, Monet was intrigued by the interplay between subject matter and the outer, natural world. Sweetnam argues, "Charing Cross Bridge with its passing trains made up a subject in which subject content and light, as in Turner, were totally merged." Besides Turner's work, the Charing Cross Bridge series also parallels Whistler's work. In his Nocturne paintings, Whistler advocated for and succeeded in making London an acceptable subject of paintings. While Monet also sought to represent London in his paintings, he did not represent the city in the same muted colors that Whistler used. House views Monet's approach as "very different from that of his contemporaries... Monet's mists are suffused with delicate yet endlessly varied harmonies of colour."

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: How does Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series) explain its Interpretation?

In this series, Monet represents the same subject in various conditions of light and atmosphere. Specifically, Monet was both captivated and challenged by the ways in which the ever-changing London fog affected the appearance of the bridge. In each of the paintings, Monet surrounds the bridge with enveloppe, a term that he himself defined as "the same light spread over everything." John House further describes this concept, writing that this "colored atmospheric cloak... allowed... [Monet] to give his paintings, both singly and when exhibited in groups, the internal coherence and unity he sought." Indeed, Monet experimented with ambience throughout his career, as seen in his Haystacks, Rouen Cathedral, and Water Lilies series.In addition to building upon his previous work, Monet builds upon the foundation laid by his contemporaries. Like Turner, Monet was intrigued by the interplay between subject matter and the outer, natural world. Sweetnam argues, "Charing Cross Bridge with its passing trains made up a subject in which subject content and light, as in Turner, were totally merged." Besides Turner's work, the Charing Cross Bridge series also parallels Whistler's work. In his Nocturne paintings, Whistler advocated for and succeeded in making London an acceptable subject of paintings. While Monet also sought to represent London in his paintings, he did not represent the city in the same muted colors that Whistler used. House views Monet's approach as "very different from that of his contemporaries... Monet's mists are suffused with delicate yet endlessly varied harmonies of colour."

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series)

Prompt: In Charing Cross Bridge (Monet series), how is the Interpretation discussed?

In this series, Monet represents the same subject in various conditions of light and atmosphere. Specifically, Monet was both captivated and challenged by the ways in which the ever-changing London fog affected the appearance of the bridge. In each of the paintings, Monet surrounds the bridge with enveloppe, a term that he himself defined as "the same light spread over everything." John House further describes this concept, writing that this "colored atmospheric cloak... allowed... [Monet] to give his paintings, both singly and when exhibited in groups, the internal coherence and unity he sought." Indeed, Monet experimented with ambience throughout his career, as seen in his Haystacks, Rouen Cathedral, and Water Lilies series.In addition to building upon his previous work, Monet builds upon the foundation laid by his contemporaries. Like Turner, Monet was intrigued by the interplay between subject matter and the outer, natural world. Sweetnam argues, "Charing Cross Bridge with its passing trains made up a subject in which subject content and light, as in Turner, were totally merged." Besides Turner's work, the Charing Cross Bridge series also parallels Whistler's work. In his Nocturne paintings, Whistler advocated for and succeeded in making London an acceptable subject of paintings. While Monet also sought to represent London in his paintings, he did not represent the city in the same muted colors that Whistler used. House views Monet's approach as "very different from that of his contemporaries... Monet's mists are suffused with delicate yet endlessly varied harmonies of colour."

Category:Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

Category:Series of paintings by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Category:Paintings in the Indianapolis Museum of Art

Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet

Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum

A picture of the Charing Cross Bridge (also known as the Hungerford Bridge) and the River Thames in London, England.

Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago

Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: Focus on The Peasant Wedding and explain the abstract.

The Peasant Wedding is a 1567 genre painting by  the Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painter and printmaker Pieter Bruegel the Elder, one of his many depicting peasant life. It is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Pieter Bruegel the Elder enjoyed painting peasants and different aspects of their lives in so many of his paintings that he has been called Peasant-Bruegel, but he was an intellectual, and many of his paintings have a symbolic meaning as well as a moral aspect.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, The Peasant Wedding.

The Peasant Wedding is a 1567 genre painting by  the Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painter and printmaker Pieter Bruegel the Elder, one of his many depicting peasant life. It is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Pieter Bruegel the Elder enjoyed painting peasants and different aspects of their lives in so many of his paintings that he has been called Peasant-Bruegel, but he was an intellectual, and many of his paintings have a symbolic meaning as well as a moral aspect.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: How does The Peasant Wedding explain its abstract?

The Peasant Wedding is a 1567 genre painting by  the Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painter and printmaker Pieter Bruegel the Elder, one of his many depicting peasant life. It is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Pieter Bruegel the Elder enjoyed painting peasants and different aspects of their lives in so many of his paintings that he has been called Peasant-Bruegel, but he was an intellectual, and many of his paintings have a symbolic meaning as well as a moral aspect.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: In The Peasant Wedding, how is the abstract discussed?

The Peasant Wedding is a 1567 genre painting by  the Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painter and printmaker Pieter Bruegel the Elder, one of his many depicting peasant life. It is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Pieter Bruegel the Elder enjoyed painting peasants and different aspects of their lives in so many of his paintings that he has been called Peasant-Bruegel, but he was an intellectual, and many of his paintings have a symbolic meaning as well as a moral aspect.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: Focus on The Peasant Wedding and explain the Scene.

The bride is in front of the green textile  wall-hanging, with a paper-crown hung above her head. She is also wearing a crown and sitting passively amidst the hearty eating and drinking around her. The bridegroom is not immediately obvious. The feast is in a barn in the summertime; two sheaves of grain with a rake recalls the work of harvesting, and the hard peasant life. Porters carry plates on a door taken off its hinges. The main food is bread, porridge and soup. Two pipers play the pijpzak, an unbreeched boy in the foreground licks a plate, a wealthy man at the far right is talking to a Franciscan friar, a dog emerges from under the table to snatch pieces of bread on the bench. The scene is said to accurately depict 16th-century peasant wedding customs. The door-carrier on the right appears to have an extra foot.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: Explain the Scene of this artwork, The Peasant Wedding.

The bride is in front of the green textile  wall-hanging, with a paper-crown hung above her head. She is also wearing a crown and sitting passively amidst the hearty eating and drinking around her. The bridegroom is not immediately obvious. The feast is in a barn in the summertime; two sheaves of grain with a rake recalls the work of harvesting, and the hard peasant life. Porters carry plates on a door taken off its hinges. The main food is bread, porridge and soup. Two pipers play the pijpzak, an unbreeched boy in the foreground licks a plate, a wealthy man at the far right is talking to a Franciscan friar, a dog emerges from under the table to snatch pieces of bread on the bench. The scene is said to accurately depict 16th-century peasant wedding customs. The door-carrier on the right appears to have an extra foot.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: How does The Peasant Wedding explain its Scene?

The bride is in front of the green textile  wall-hanging, with a paper-crown hung above her head. She is also wearing a crown and sitting passively amidst the hearty eating and drinking around her. The bridegroom is not immediately obvious. The feast is in a barn in the summertime; two sheaves of grain with a rake recalls the work of harvesting, and the hard peasant life. Porters carry plates on a door taken off its hinges. The main food is bread, porridge and soup. Two pipers play the pijpzak, an unbreeched boy in the foreground licks a plate, a wealthy man at the far right is talking to a Franciscan friar, a dog emerges from under the table to snatch pieces of bread on the bench. The scene is said to accurately depict 16th-century peasant wedding customs. The door-carrier on the right appears to have an extra foot.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: In The Peasant Wedding, how is the Scene discussed?

The bride is in front of the green textile  wall-hanging, with a paper-crown hung above her head. She is also wearing a crown and sitting passively amidst the hearty eating and drinking around her. The bridegroom is not immediately obvious. The feast is in a barn in the summertime; two sheaves of grain with a rake recalls the work of harvesting, and the hard peasant life. Porters carry plates on a door taken off its hinges. The main food is bread, porridge and soup. Two pipers play the pijpzak, an unbreeched boy in the foreground licks a plate, a wealthy man at the far right is talking to a Franciscan friar, a dog emerges from under the table to snatch pieces of bread on the bench. The scene is said to accurately depict 16th-century peasant wedding customs. The door-carrier on the right appears to have an extra foot.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: Focus on The Peasant Wedding and explain the The Groom.

There has been much conjecture as to the identity of the groom in this painting. The critics Gilbert Highet and Gustav Glück have argued that the groom is the man in the centre of the painting, wearing a dark coat and seen in profile, or the ill-bred son of a wealthy couple, seen against the far wall to the right of the bride, eating with a spoon. It has also been suggested that according to contemporary custom, the groom is not seated, but may be the man pouring out beer. According to the same custom, he may also be the man handing the plates of food to his guests from the near end of the table, wearing a red cap.In a Freudian vein, Rudy Rucker speculates:... the groom is the man in the red hat, passing food towards the bride. The motion of a husband, to penetrate the wife. Near him are no less than three phallic symbols pointing towards the wife: the man’s arm, the knife on the table, and the salt-cellar [salt shaker] on the table. At the end of the man’s arm is an ellipse of an angle-seen dish that is oriented and located in the right location to represent the bride’s vagina.Some authors have even suggested that the groom is not even included in the painting. Van der Elst speculated that this could be the depiction of an old Flemish proverb: It is a poor man who is not able to be at his own wedding. Some connect it with the biblical Wedding of Cana.Lindsay and Bernard Huppé speculated that the painting was a Christian allegory of corruption, depicting the corrupted Church destined to be the bride of Christ, but the groom has not appeared to claim his corrupt bride.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: Explain the The Groom of this artwork, The Peasant Wedding.

There has been much conjecture as to the identity of the groom in this painting. The critics Gilbert Highet and Gustav Glück have argued that the groom is the man in the centre of the painting, wearing a dark coat and seen in profile, or the ill-bred son of a wealthy couple, seen against the far wall to the right of the bride, eating with a spoon. It has also been suggested that according to contemporary custom, the groom is not seated, but may be the man pouring out beer. According to the same custom, he may also be the man handing the plates of food to his guests from the near end of the table, wearing a red cap.In a Freudian vein, Rudy Rucker speculates:... the groom is the man in the red hat, passing food towards the bride. The motion of a husband, to penetrate the wife. Near him are no less than three phallic symbols pointing towards the wife: the man’s arm, the knife on the table, and the salt-cellar [salt shaker] on the table. At the end of the man’s arm is an ellipse of an angle-seen dish that is oriented and located in the right location to represent the bride’s vagina.Some authors have even suggested that the groom is not even included in the painting. Van der Elst speculated that this could be the depiction of an old Flemish proverb: It is a poor man who is not able to be at his own wedding. Some connect it with the biblical Wedding of Cana.Lindsay and Bernard Huppé speculated that the painting was a Christian allegory of corruption, depicting the corrupted Church destined to be the bride of Christ, but the groom has not appeared to claim his corrupt bride.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: How does The Peasant Wedding explain its The Groom?

There has been much conjecture as to the identity of the groom in this painting. The critics Gilbert Highet and Gustav Glück have argued that the groom is the man in the centre of the painting, wearing a dark coat and seen in profile, or the ill-bred son of a wealthy couple, seen against the far wall to the right of the bride, eating with a spoon. It has also been suggested that according to contemporary custom, the groom is not seated, but may be the man pouring out beer. According to the same custom, he may also be the man handing the plates of food to his guests from the near end of the table, wearing a red cap.In a Freudian vein, Rudy Rucker speculates:... the groom is the man in the red hat, passing food towards the bride. The motion of a husband, to penetrate the wife. Near him are no less than three phallic symbols pointing towards the wife: the man’s arm, the knife on the table, and the salt-cellar [salt shaker] on the table. At the end of the man’s arm is an ellipse of an angle-seen dish that is oriented and located in the right location to represent the bride’s vagina.Some authors have even suggested that the groom is not even included in the painting. Van der Elst speculated that this could be the depiction of an old Flemish proverb: It is a poor man who is not able to be at his own wedding. Some connect it with the biblical Wedding of Cana.Lindsay and Bernard Huppé speculated that the painting was a Christian allegory of corruption, depicting the corrupted Church destined to be the bride of Christ, but the groom has not appeared to claim his corrupt bride.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: In The Peasant Wedding, how is the The Groom discussed?

There has been much conjecture as to the identity of the groom in this painting. The critics Gilbert Highet and Gustav Glück have argued that the groom is the man in the centre of the painting, wearing a dark coat and seen in profile, or the ill-bred son of a wealthy couple, seen against the far wall to the right of the bride, eating with a spoon. It has also been suggested that according to contemporary custom, the groom is not seated, but may be the man pouring out beer. According to the same custom, he may also be the man handing the plates of food to his guests from the near end of the table, wearing a red cap.In a Freudian vein, Rudy Rucker speculates:... the groom is the man in the red hat, passing food towards the bride. The motion of a husband, to penetrate the wife. Near him are no less than three phallic symbols pointing towards the wife: the man’s arm, the knife on the table, and the salt-cellar [salt shaker] on the table. At the end of the man’s arm is an ellipse of an angle-seen dish that is oriented and located in the right location to represent the bride’s vagina.Some authors have even suggested that the groom is not even included in the painting. Van der Elst speculated that this could be the depiction of an old Flemish proverb: It is a poor man who is not able to be at his own wedding. Some connect it with the biblical Wedding of Cana.Lindsay and Bernard Huppé speculated that the painting was a Christian allegory of corruption, depicting the corrupted Church destined to be the bride of Christ, but the groom has not appeared to claim his corrupt bride.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: Focus on The Peasant Wedding and explain the Mystery of the "third foot".

Many viewers have wondered why Bruegel appears to have given a third foot to the red-clad servant on the right, carrying the tray. Bruegel’s son, Brueghel the Younger, thought that this foot was an error or, at best, too confusing for viewers. His 1620 copy of his father’s painting solves the problem simply by eliminating the third foot altogether. However, an analysis by Claudine Majzels of the angles and the relative positions of the people involved suggests that the red-clad servant’s “third foot” is actually the extended left foot of the brown-clad man who is in a half-crouch transferring the plates to the table.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: Explain the Mystery of the "third foot" of this artwork, The Peasant Wedding.

Many viewers have wondered why Bruegel appears to have given a third foot to the red-clad servant on the right, carrying the tray. Bruegel’s son, Brueghel the Younger, thought that this foot was an error or, at best, too confusing for viewers. His 1620 copy of his father’s painting solves the problem simply by eliminating the third foot altogether. However, an analysis by Claudine Majzels of the angles and the relative positions of the people involved suggests that the red-clad servant’s “third foot” is actually the extended left foot of the brown-clad man who is in a half-crouch transferring the plates to the table.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: How does The Peasant Wedding explain its Mystery of the "third foot"?

Many viewers have wondered why Bruegel appears to have given a third foot to the red-clad servant on the right, carrying the tray. Bruegel’s son, Brueghel the Younger, thought that this foot was an error or, at best, too confusing for viewers. His 1620 copy of his father’s painting solves the problem simply by eliminating the third foot altogether. However, an analysis by Claudine Majzels of the angles and the relative positions of the people involved suggests that the red-clad servant’s “third foot” is actually the extended left foot of the brown-clad man who is in a half-crouch transferring the plates to the table.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: In The Peasant Wedding, how is the Mystery of the "third foot" discussed?

Many viewers have wondered why Bruegel appears to have given a third foot to the red-clad servant on the right, carrying the tray. Bruegel’s son, Brueghel the Younger, thought that this foot was an error or, at best, too confusing for viewers. His 1620 copy of his father’s painting solves the problem simply by eliminating the third foot altogether. However, an analysis by Claudine Majzels of the angles and the relative positions of the people involved suggests that the red-clad servant’s “third foot” is actually the extended left foot of the brown-clad man who is in a half-crouch transferring the plates to the table.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: Focus on The Peasant Wedding and explain the In Popular Culture.

The painting was parodied in Asterix in Belgium.Another parody was the postcard for the Belgian entry in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: Explain the In Popular Culture of this artwork, The Peasant Wedding.

The painting was parodied in Asterix in Belgium.Another parody was the postcard for the Belgian entry in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: How does The Peasant Wedding explain its In Popular Culture?

The painting was parodied in Asterix in Belgium.Another parody was the postcard for the Belgian entry in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


The Peasant Wedding

Prompt: In The Peasant Wedding, how is the In Popular Culture discussed?

The painting was parodied in Asterix in Belgium.Another parody was the postcard for the Belgian entry in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979.

File:Bauernhochzeit (Kind mit Schüssel).jpg

Category:Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum


Ansidei Madonna

Prompt: Focus on Ansidei Madonna and explain the abstract.

The Ansidei Madonna (Italian: Pala Ansidei) is a 1505–1507 painting by the Italian High Renaissance artist Raphael, painted during his Florentine period. It shows the Blessed Virgin Mary sitting on a wooden throne, with the child Christ on her lap. On her right John the Baptist stands, on her left Saint Nicholas is reading.At the time the painting was commissioned, there were other paintings that made up the grouping for the altarpiece.  Of the predellas, the only that remains is Saint John the Baptist Preaching, the others are inexplicably lost.Both the main painting, "Ansidei Madonna", and the predella "Saint John the Baptist Preaching", are located at the National Gallery in London.

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery, London

Saint John the Baptist preaching, one of the paintings on the predella for Ansidei Madonna. National Gallery, London

File:Raphael - Saint John the Baptist Preaching.JPG

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

George Spencer-Churchill, 8th Duke of Marlborough


Ansidei Madonna

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Ansidei Madonna.

The Ansidei Madonna (Italian: Pala Ansidei) is a 1505–1507 painting by the Italian High Renaissance artist Raphael, painted during his Florentine period. It shows the Blessed Virgin Mary sitting on a wooden throne, with the child Christ on her lap. On her right John the Baptist stands, on her left Saint Nicholas is reading.At the time the painting was commissioned, there were other paintings that made up the grouping for the altarpiece.  Of the predellas, the only that remains is Saint John the Baptist Preaching, the others are inexplicably lost.Both the main painting, "Ansidei Madonna", and the predella "Saint John the Baptist Preaching", are located at the National Gallery in London.

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery, London

Saint John the Baptist preaching, one of the paintings on the predella for Ansidei Madonna. National Gallery, London

File:Raphael - Saint John the Baptist Preaching.JPG

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

George Spencer-Churchill, 8th Duke of Marlborough


Ansidei Madonna

Prompt: How does Ansidei Madonna explain its abstract?

The Ansidei Madonna (Italian: Pala Ansidei) is a 1505–1507 painting by the Italian High Renaissance artist Raphael, painted during his Florentine period. It shows the Blessed Virgin Mary sitting on a wooden throne, with the child Christ on her lap. On her right John the Baptist stands, on her left Saint Nicholas is reading.At the time the painting was commissioned, there were other paintings that made up the grouping for the altarpiece.  Of the predellas, the only that remains is Saint John the Baptist Preaching, the others are inexplicably lost.Both the main painting, "Ansidei Madonna", and the predella "Saint John the Baptist Preaching", are located at the National Gallery in London.

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery, London

Saint John the Baptist preaching, one of the paintings on the predella for Ansidei Madonna. National Gallery, London

File:Raphael - Saint John the Baptist Preaching.JPG

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

George Spencer-Churchill, 8th Duke of Marlborough