“From the time I was very young I wanted to draw to understand what I was seeing. I used a pencil to understand things.” This statement from Robert Hannaford concisely encapsulates Hannaford’s approach to art. Throughout his artwork, it is easy to see this approach in his quest to understand the people and the environments around him. Robert Hannaford is one of Australia’s most renowned and influential portrait artists, and the Art Gallery of South Australia has curated an exhibit of the artist’s portraiture and drawing works. This celebration of the long career and skill of this artist shows exactly why his portraits are held in high esteem. The exhibition displays many of Hannaford’s infamous portraits, as well as a number of drawings and …show more content…
portraits from Hannaford’s private collection. As well as containing a number of Hannaford’s works, works from other noticeable realist artists are included in the exhibit, showcasing Hannaford’s similarities and yet obvious differences to these artists.
Robert Hannaford was born in 1944 in Riverton, South Australia. As a young boy, he was heavily invested in drawing and creative practices, often entering competitions and wining them. Despite this success, Hannaford had no true visual arts training until he attended night classes at the South Australian School of Art (SASA) in 1962 but soon left after deciding that they were not going to teach him what he wanted to learn. He took up a position at the Clem Taylor Advertising Agency as Junior Artist in the early 1960s, where he was taught about light, form, rendering. A fellow artist at the Agency, Hugo Shaw, showed a young Hannaford the works of the European Masters, such as Rembrandt, Michelangelo and Velasquez. Shaw and Hannaford used to consistently look at the works by the Masters, learning and taking note on the ways that they demonstrated form, light and tone within their paintings, learning the various ways of creating representation within their …show more content…
artworks. Highly influenced by the works of the old Masters, the choice to include similar works by such artists within the exhibit highlights the technique and skill that Hannaford displays within his work. Hannaford, in the book Natural Eye by John Neylon, recalls a particular Rembrandt that had a profound impact upon him. He states “I remember an exhibition in Melbourne…Suddenly, above the crowd, there on the opposite wall was a Rembrandt, one of the Jewish subjects he painted late in life. The man seemed alive, as if radiating energy over the crowd.” This strategic placement highlights the similarity and timeless approach and technique that Hannaford exhibits within his paintings and drawings. However, this placement also contrasts the differences in Hannaford’s work to those of the Masters who he so highly admires. With Hannaford’s work, the subjects seem to be captured in the painting, not only in their likeness, but also their “essence” and personality shine through within these paintings. After dropping out of the School of Art, he rented a loft studio in Adelaide, undertaking the firsts of his commissioned portraits.
It was during this time that he was also introduced to Hans Heysen, the famous artist who resided in Hahndorf, South Australia, by David Dridan, a well-known landscape artist who lived next to Hannaford’s studio in Adelaide, in 1964. Heysen took an interest in Hannaford’s work and encouraged him in his practice. Hannaford recalls that he was particularly impressed with Heysen’s ability to capture light and display it with
precision. He is strongly influenced by South Australian artist Ivor Hele, who was introduced to him by his first father in law, Sir Kenneth Wills, in 1964. Hele became a mentor to Hannaford, further tutoring him in tone and realism. The artist had a key influence upon Hannaford, and shaped and honed his skill and continues to influence him to this day. Hannaford said of Hele: “he still influences me…. like a father figure” Hele encouraged him to go and study in Ballarat under celebrated war artist Geoffrey Mainwaring, who developed his painting skills from 1967-68. In 1969, he was awarded the first residential A.M.E. Bale Art Scholarship, moving him to Melbourne. While in Melbourne, he painted a number of commissioned portraits, including one of Sir Donald Bradman which currently hangs in Marylebone Cricket Club Museum at Lord’s in London. In 1974 he moved back to South Australia to a farmhouse near his childhood home in Riverton, but quickly moved again to Kangaroo Island. In 1987, following his divorce 10 years earlier, he returned once again to Riverton, where he set up a studio and gallery space and works to this day. Hannaford has an innate respect for those he paints. It is clear throughout his portraits of his genuine interest in learning about the subject and understanding them. In an interview with the National Portraiture Gallery, one of Hannaford’s portraiture subjects, human rights campaigners Lowitja O’Donoghue, (Pictured opposite page) talks about how Hannaford repeatedly asked her questions about her life and experiences during the sitting process for the portrait. In an interview, she states that as she was painted, she knew that Hannaford’s questioning meant that he was trying to find out more about her. Hannaford’s portrait of Tim Flannery, is larger than life and conveys what Hannaford deems to be Flannery’s personality-larger than life. Flannery leans forward in the portrait, which Hannaford stated communicated his enthusiasm. By making the portrait larger than life and positioning Flannery in that pose, Hannaford successfully communicates to his viewers the personality of his subject. This perhaps is one of the most successful elements of Hannaford’s portraits, in his ability to draw the viewer in and attempt to make them understand the person within the painting. As the viewer delves deeper into Hannaford’s work, you attempt to understand the subject of the portrait as deeply as Hannaford does. Robert Dessaix once said that “…if the Yale Psychologist Paul Bloom is right, to believe in a captured essence of some kind inside physical objects is part of being human.” Many of his portraits shine with a vibrancy within the paint, giving this impression of life and the essence captured within the portrait itself. Indeed, it can almost be believed that the person themselves is living within this portrait. The effect of this is not lost on the viewer, as this capture the attention and makes the viewer stop to examine the portrait. This is also effective through the lack of emotion depicted within the subject’s faces. The subjects stare out of the paintings, drawing the viewer in as they try to understand them. Hannaford has repeatedly said how portraits that smile are uninteresting to him, and indeed one can see how this philosophy determines the way in which he paints and how he arranges his subject within the painting. This technique has an interesting effect upon the viewer of the portraits. The portraits seem to capture a timeless moment that is translatable to any time or space. Robert Dessaix, in Caught You! Reflections on Being Painted summarises the effect so succinctly with “it’s dangerous to depict strong emotions in painted portraits-anger, surprise, delight, agitation-because they anchor the picture far too strongly in a given moment in life, so that the illusion of the sweep of that life glimpsed through a particular moment disappears.” This is certainly successful with Hannaford’s work, as the viewer is swept into looking at the portraits that do not depict any particular time or capture a particular moment in time, with the neutral background and focus on the subject. This is one of the most effective elements of Hannaford’s work, as everything in the portrait is used to make the subject the primary and only figure that you look at within the painting. A key element within Hannaford’s practice is the collection of self-portraits done by the artist over the many years that his career has spanned. These self-portraits feature the artist in various states. The works often feature the artist completely expressionless, staring intently at the viewer. This intense form of scrutiny gives the lasting impression that the artist is attempting to understand himself through painting himself. However, throughout these works, there is also a variety of this expression. The collection of self-portraits can seem odd, given the amount contained within his work; however, Hannaford used the self-portraits not only to document time and the changes in himself, but also to understand facial structure and expressions. In this work, there is also the notion that Hannaford Is trying to understand himself and who he is in these portraits; examining himself and understanding himself through these portraits. Self Portrait with Tubes is one such work. The painting was created during the period of his cancer in 2006. This work features the artist, completely naked, with a feeding tube protruding from his stomach, staring down at the viewer from a height. The painting however, is on a smaller intimate scale, which does convey this sense of uncertainty. The height is imposing and the figure dominates the painting, conveying a sense of authority and victory about him. This is read into, in hindsight, for his victory over his cancer. The intense form of scrutiny is again conveyed within this painting, and this creates a questioning effect, wondering whether Hannaford is attempting to understand his illness and the effect it is having upon him. A less well-known aspect to Hannaford’s practice as an artist is his drawings. His drawings attempt at understand the human form as well as understand the impacts of light and shadow on the human figure. These drawings are almost mathematical in their precision and detail. Throughout this collection of drawings, Hannaford displays an unwavering intensity as he repeatedly draws figures and body parts in order to study the effects of light and form in various positions. A number of his works depict scenes from life, but in contrast to a number of his figure drawings, they are simple line and contour drawings, capturing the pose but leaving ambiguity as to time and place, activities and the surrounding environment. Multiple self-portraits are shown within his drawings as well, with various expressions and light impacts, again reinforcing how much Hannaford relies upon himself to understand the human form. These self-portraits again show the intense scrutiny that appears in many of these works, and the lack of colour and depth created by his paintings add a harshness to the portrait. When combined with the intense scrutiny that so many of his self-portraits have, the overall effect is uncomfortable and confronting, not in a disturbing way, but because of the intensity of the stare with which the portrait stares at the viewer. This particularly effective when he adopts the higher angle for his portraiture with a combined effect of power and authority, all of which is humbling and puts the viewer in awe of the figure in the drawing. Robert Hannaford’s impact upon Australian Art can hardly be overlooked. A 16 time Archibald Prize finalist. He has painted the likes of former Prime Minister Paul Keating, Chancellors and Ministers within Parliament, Australian of the Year nominees and everyday people. He has been commissioned twice to capture Sir Donald Bradman: once, in a portrait, and another, in sculpture form, which now sits at the entrance to Adelaide Oval. ………………. Within Hannaford’s work, the artist displays a yearning to understand life as it is, to understand the effects of time, effects of death and events in life upon us as humans. His portraits are philosophical, trying to understand what makes us innately human and trying to understand ourselves. His wife, artist Alison Mitchell, talked about the impact of portraiture: “And what we recognise is not just a specific human characteristic, but one that is universal, that we can all relate to, (though this may mean different things to different people) ...And this recognition is what existed between sitter and artist and now, exists between viewer and portrait. The relating of emotion is what makes these portraits remarkable. And they are remarkable for the ‘universal’ humanity they relate." This statement captures the magic behind Hannaford’s portraits. Through his care and his respect for his craft and the subjects of the portrait, as well as his genuine interest in their lives and who they are, Hannaford is able to connect the viewer with the people who he paints, showing them the person that they really are. As Hannaford says: “I search for the inner life of my subject matter through visual representation; I search for the truth,” a sentiment echoed throughout his work. What Hannaford leads the viewer to do is think about the portrait, and after consideration, redefine the success of a portrait; perhaps, not the likeness and photorealism displayed but the essence of a person being shown through the painting.
Joseph Mallord William Turner, 1775-1851, born the son of a London Barber and Wigmaker, is considered one of the greatest European artists of the 19th century. Turner, the English romantic landscape painter, watercolourists and printmaker, was regarded as a controversial and revolutionary figure by his contemporaries despite his training being similar to other artists of the time. His work ‘Walton Bridge’, Oil on Canvas 1806-10, reflects much of his training as a young artists as well as his well-known Romantic style. In this essay I will follow the beginnings of Turners artistic life, showing how his influences, training and opinions surrounding landscape painting have influenced his work ‘Walton Bridge.’ I will further explore how art critics, fellow artists and the wider public of the 19th Century received ‘Walton Bridge’ and his Landscape paintings in general.
This book was also one of my first encounters with an important truth of art: that your work is powerful not because you convey a new emotion to the audience, but because you tap into an emotion the audience already feels but can't express.
Since its emergence over 30,000 years ago, one of visual art’s main purposes has been to act as an instrument of personal expression and catharsis. Through the mastery of paint, pencil, clay, and other mediums, artists can articulate and make sense of their current situation or past experiences, by portraying their complex, abstract emotions in a concrete form. The act of creation gives the artist a feeling of authority or control over these situations and emotions. Seen in the work of Michelangelo, Frida Kahlo, Jean Michel-Basquiat, and others, artists’ cathartic use of visual art is universal, giving it symbolic value in literature. In Natasha Trethewey's Native Guard, Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go, and Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness,
Carle had a happy childhood in America. However, he moved to Germany with his parents when he was six years old and attended the prestigious art school Akademie der Bildenden Künste. In 1952 he moved back to New York to return to the happy place where he grew up. He was then recruited as a graphic designer by The New York Times before he was enrolled as a mail clerk in the Korean War. Once he returned, he worked as the art director for an advertising agency (“Eric Carle”).
At the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Rauschenberg art piece was definitely one form of art I once did not consider to be art. The artwork is not exactly a painting to me but certainly an illustration of something that is connected to real day to day objects. It was created by the artist Robert Rauschenberg in 1954. It is oil on canvas painting which is eighty by ninety six in size and the materials used are oil, paper, fabric and metal which are all on wood. It looks quite messy, with materials like newspapers, cut out fabrics, the colors’ drips and how they are splashed around. The image doesn’t look attractive but it sure does attract different ideas from the viewers on what the image itself is trying to portray.
Perry soon took an interest in drawing and building model aeroplanes, which offered some escape from his difficult home life and violent stepfather. Following encouragement from his art teacher, Perry made the “fateful decision” to study art. (Jones, 2006)
Ever since the beginning of time, Americans have been struggling to obtain equality. The main goal is to have a country where everyone can be considered equal, and no one is judged or discriminated against because of things out of their control. Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Plays with this idea of total equality in his futuristic short story, Harrison Bergeron. The setting is in 2081, where everyone is equal. No one is allowed to be better than anybody else. The government makes anyone who would be considered above average wear a transmitting device to limit their thoughts to twenty seconds at a time, which is considered average in this day. They also must wear bags of buckshot shackled to their necks to ensure no one can be stronger than anybody
The handicaps are to people as the cage is to the bird. This simile describes how Caged Bird and Harrison Bergeron are alike. Harrison Bergeron and Caged Bird are very alike in many reasons. They both reference limitations on freedom. In Caged Bird the limitation is that the bird is in the cage and cannot fly or go wherever it pleases. In Harrison Bergeron the limitations are all the handicaps. In Harrison Bergeron there are limitations to the citizens. These are called handicaps. When you are more capable at something then other people are then you receive handicaps that limit your abilities so that everyone is equal. Some handicaps are earpieces that stop you from thinking with a ringing sound, masks for those that have superior beauty, and
Though people can look into color and composition, others can still even look into the source of the art itself. Cole goes deeper, delving into the source of the art, looking in particular into the idea of cultural appropriation and the view a person can give others. Though it is good for people to be exposed to different opinions of a group or an object, sometimes people can find it difficult to tell the difference between the reality and the art itself. Sometimes art can be so powerful that its message stays and impacts its audience to the point where the viewer’s image of the subject of the art changes entirely. Cole brings up an important question about art, however. Art has become some kind of media for spreading awareness and even wisdom at times, but in reality, “there is also the question of what the photograph is for, what role it plays within the economic circulation of images” (973). Cole might even be implying that Nussbaum’s advertisement can sometimes be the point of some media, and that sometimes the different genres of art can just be to make someone with a particular interest happy. One more point that Cole makes is that “[a]rt is always difficult, but it is especially difficult when it comes to telling other people’s stories.” (974) Truthfully, awareness and other like-concepts are difficult to keep going when a person or a group is not directly involved.
“Harrison Bergeron” a short story by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., takes place in a totalitarian society where everyone is equal. A man who tries to play the savior, but ultimately fails in his endeavors to change the world. Vonnegut short story showed political views on communism, which is that total equality is not good (and that equity might be better).
It is impossible to understand the innermost and ever complex thoughts, feelings, hopes, and reflections of others. To understand is to grasp the strife and pleasure of each moment’s depth through a set lens. Confined by my own lens, I have been and will always be the main character of my own book. Though I can never know another human’s cognitive glances, I can at least be mindful of the infinite complexity and reasoning of each human. Even the most empathetic cannot understand exactly how Claude Monet felt for Camille, how Beethoven felt for “Elise”, or how
When I imagine an artist, I picture a Parisian dabbing at a sprawling masterpiece between drags on a cigarette seated in an extravagantly long holder. He stands amid a motley sea of color, great splashes of vermillion and ultramarine and yellow ochre hiding the tarp on the studio floor. Somehow, not one lonely drop of paint adorns his Italian leather shoes with their pointed toes like baguettes.
From the creation of art to its modern understanding, artists have strived to perform and perfect a photo realistic painting with the use of complex lines, blend of colors, and captivating subjects. This is not the case anymore due to the invention of the camera in 1827, since it will always be the ultimate form of realism. Due to this, artists had the opportunities to branch away from the classical formation of realism, and venture into new forms such as what is known today as modern art. In the examination of two well known artists, Pablo Picasso and Jackson Pollock, we can see that the artist doesn’t only intend for the painting to be just a painting, but more of a form of telling a scene through challenging thoughts, and expressing of the artists emotion in their creation.
John Heartfield was born as Helmut Herzfelde in Berlin on June 19, 1891. Heartfield parent’s abandoned him and his siblings and they spent their childhood with other relatives. He worked at a bookstore in Wiesbaden before going to school in Munich. Heartfield had a passion for painting so he went to school at the Royal Bavarian Art and Crafts School in Munich. He had a chance to learn from two commercial graphic designers Albert Neisgerber and Ludwig Hohlwein. After graduating from the Royal Bavarian Art and Crafts School in Munich he gained a lot of experience. Heartfield decided to have his own career as a commercial artist, starting off with designing book covers in Mannheim. Heartfield was still active in a school; he did most of his studying with artist Ernst Neumann in Berlin.
"A picture can paint a thousand words." I found the one picture in my mind that does paint a thousand words and more. It was a couple of weeks ago when I saw this picture in the writing center; the writing center is part of State College. The beautiful colors caught my eye. I was so enchanted by the painting, I lost the group I was with. When I heard about the observation essay, where we have to write about a person or thing in the city that catches your eye. I knew right away that I wanted to write about the painting. I don’t know why, but I felt that the painting was describing the way I felt at that moment.