Reblogged from Michigan in Pictures:

Taken today 11/17/2011 This Rose just started to open in my backyard 2 days ago, must like cold weather. Boyne City, Michigan, photo by rickrjw.
Couldn’t resist. Stay warm!
Check it out background big and in Rick’s Flowers slideshow.

This is a gorgeous photo from Michigan in Pictures blog. Enjoy!

_

Antoine de Lonhy. The Presentation of Christ in the Temple (detail) , 1490. Tempera on canvas transferred from panel, 53 x 51 3/16 in. Bob Jones Collection, 1958; Inv. No. P.58.118

A Divine Light: Northern Renaissance Paintings from the Bob Jones University Museum & Gallery and its accompanying catalogue, which have been awarded financial support from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, presents twenty-eight works of art from one of the finest collections of Old Master paintings in the United States. These paintings were acquired by Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., for the art museum he founded in 1951 at Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC.

The great Baroque holdings of the museum have long overshadowed other parts of the collection, and A Divine Light marks the first time that its beautiful Northern Renaissance paintings have been the sole focus of an exhibition. A Divine Light is designed as intimate encounter with the devotional art of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and explores the ways in which Northern Renaissance artists expressed the central mysteries of the Christian faith through setting, pose, gesture, and the objects of everyday life.

Four of the paintings have undergone conservation treatment prior to their presentation in Nashville.

A Divine Light: Northern Renaissance Paintings from the Bob Jones University Museum & Gallery is organized by the Frist Center for the Visual Arts and the Bob Jones University Museum & Gallery.

Continue Reading_ »

http://fristcenter.org/calendar-exhibitions/detail/a-divine-light#

Add this to your “To Do’s” as we slip into winter! The Parthenon’s Cowan Collection is an incredible array of fine art and includes work from Bierstadt, Vedder, Church, and Benjamin West. The provenance of this 60+ piece collection is quite intriguing and fulfills John M. Cowan’s wish: “……In my humble way to express to the citizens of that State, to some extent at least, the love and reverence I entertain for Tennessee.”

With the help of ACU Professor Goeff Broderick, the young men at Narrow Gate performed a foundry pour in which they made candle holders that they will sell as a fundraiser when finished.  They got the flames going around dusk, and by the time it was fully dark they were ready to pour.  It was quite an amazing site, as well as a wonderful accomplishment by a great group of guys.  The turnout was good, the music by highly acclaimed bluegrass musician Ron Block was excellent, and the barbeque by Steve Ford was outstanding.

Placing metal into the burner

First, all of the other works are painted in true Munch style in oil on canvas, as were most of his works.  He painted “The Scream” in tempera paint (a basic paint similar to poster paint) and pastels on a piece of cardboard, much like that which a box is made of.  These are not archival materials in any sense, but he managed to paint “The Scream” at least four times, each time on a piece of cardboard.  Do the delicate materials used represent Munch’s delicate mental state at the time?

Second, Munch was famous for working and reworking his paintings and making copies of them, or, tossing them if dissatisfied and starting over completely.  The other works of ‘The Freize’ have a finished look, one that took time and a more even method of technique.  “The Scream” on the other hand, is a much different style for Munch, painted fast and furiously, almost as if he could not paint fast enough to get the idea out of his head.  So, how did “The Scream” come to be?  Why add a piece that when compared to the others looks almost abstract in technique and subject matter?

"The Scream" by Edvard Munch, tempera and pastel on cardboard, ca. 1883-1889, collection The National Gallery, Oslo, Norway

Munch’s diaries and other notes of record indicate he and some friends were walking along a road near the water’s edge on a November evening in 1883.  When the sun set that night, it turned the sky a bloody red.  Already in a frail mental state, Munch froze, paralyzed with fear, while his friends continued on, apparently oblivious to the scene at hand.  What did Edvard Munch actually see, that would have such a profound effect on him?  Many theories are out there, but physicists Don Olson and Russell Doescher, along with English professor Marilyn Olson believe Munch witnessed the aftermath of a once in a lifetime event.

Earlier that year in May, halfway around the world on the island of Krakatoa, off the coast of Indonesia, a volcano began to vent from the pressure built up inside, resulting in activity on and off again for the next three months.  Finally, over a period of a couple of days in late August of 1883, two-thirds of the island were blown apart by the massive volcanic explosions, which were heard as far away as Australia.  The extreme force actually burst the eardrums of some nearby sailors, and the ash plume was reported to have risen as high as over 15 miles into the atmosphere.  The death toll was massive in the surrounding areas, due to the explosions as well as the resulting tsunamis.

The global aftereffects would last for many years.  Temperatures were colder than normal and by November, reports surfaced from New York, Norway, and much of the Northern Hemisphere regarding the magnificent, even spooky at times, sunsets.  The descriptions ranged from “blood-red”, to “alive with color” to “the sky is on fire”.  Many artists were inclined to paint the phenomenon happening daily around them.  Some art scholars have been quick to say that Munch did not paint this event, however, Munch himself recollected that it was an image he would never forget, saying it even drove him mad trying to record it in paint.  Did he or didn’t he paint the sky from life?  Did he ever even know of the Krakatoa eruption?  Munch wrote that he tried feverishly for years to paint his recollection of the evening stroll with his friends, which may explain why there are at least four versions of it and why they were painted so quickly that some of the cardboard even shows through the paint.

The final difference that makes “The Scream” stand out from the rest of  the images of ‘The Frieze’, is its popularity.  “The Scream” has been transformed into one of the most iconic images in the world.  It has appeared on nearly everything, from magazine covers and magnets to key chains, posters, and greeting cards, etc.  Even full-sized Halloween masks are replicas of the central figure in the painting.  What makes this painting so popular?  Do people connect with the artist or the image?  Do they feel the despair and confusion that leaps out of the blood red sky?  One thing is for certain, this most likely was an incidence of art imitating life.

Footnote:  While researching Edvard Munch and “The Scream”, I literally stumbled upon a book by Edward Dolnick titled, “The Rescue Artist” (copyright 2005, Harper Collins).  I was aware of course of “The Scream” and Munch, but this book enlightened me even more about the two subjects.  It is here that I found out how Munch came to paint “The Scream”, which led to even further research on that issue alone.  The book is a true story about the 1994 theft of the actual painting from the National Gallery in Oslo, Norway.  If you enjoy reading about art, history, and cops and robbers, I think you will enjoy reading “The Rescue Artist“.

This last commission was a bit different with an interesting twist:  the client had ordered the painting as a surprise for his wife.  Upon completion, he asked if I could deliver it to her workplace.  I said sure, I’d be happy to.  With directions in hand, we drove to the location and I asked for her at the front desk.  She came in and looked at me with that “I know I know you from someplace look”.  I had waited on them at the restaurant I work at, and she was befuddled as to why I would be there.

I handed her the large box I had and told her I was supposed to give this to her.  She kept asking what it was, and had absolutely no clue as to what was inside.  She carefully opened it, read the card I had made with what her husband had me write, and lifted the foam cover.  She immediately started to tear up when she saw that it was her holding their beloved dog the day she got him as a puppy.  “Oh my gosh,” she said, “this is his favorite photo of us!”  She was extremely happy and asked questions about the painting and thanked me over and over.  I had to go, so I left hoping they both liked it as her husband had only seen it in a photo via email.

About twenty minutes later the client emailed me and said she was thrilled with the portrait.  She told him she was trying not to cry while I was there, (I am getting used to that) and was amazed at the detail.  I told him I hoped he liked it equally as well, and that she and I both agreed that he did a wonderful job in choosing a frame.

I always love to give people their paintings!  I love to see them as they look it over, as well as see their relationship with the giver deepen.  I feel the Lord speaks to us through art as well as nature, and I hope everyone can see the goodness He is constantly offering us!