A Work Progressing

Specifically, our understanding of cave art is changing. The purpose of these images has long been a mystery. The fact that they exist at all is due to the nature of their placement. Protected by the elements, the art is in almost pristine shape when first discovered. Some art has suffered from the breath of visitors and the technology that has been introduced to the cave system.

In some cases, elaborate models have been created to mimic an exact copy for tourists to experience. Most caves have been closed to the public, except for researchers.

While not obviously stated, the general consensus has been that the creators of the cave art were male. The sense was that the males were generally thought to be the hunters of the society, and the art seemed to be primarily about the animals that were hunted.

The most thought the reason of the images was to capture the spirit of the animal in order to have a successful hunt. Placing the images in a very dark cave system was at least two-fold. 1) proving the bravery of the hunter, and 2) capturing the spirit of the animal to be hunted. There may be other reasons, but none definitely determined the gender of the creators. Of at least no one thought about it.

I few years ago there was a study of the various handprints that were also left behind. It could be the remains of visitors it also could be a type of signature of the creators. It turns out that a new study suggested that 75% of the handprints were female.

Size alone was not the major factor. It turns out that the finger lengths of prehistoric individual are more different between male and female, and not the same as between a young boy and an adult male.

This is not as true today with modern skeletons, but the averages of the lengths of certain fingers can determine the sex as well as the pelvis.

This is how they determined that 75% of the cave art handprints were female. If so, then why were they created?

For me, it makes sense that delicate work might favor the female. Common activities may have been basket weaving. Using tools or brushes in a cave might favor women. Just getting into some of the caves would have been easier for a slighter frame.

Much could be decided if we knew for certain the reason and purpose of the cave art.

What we do known from history is the lack of women creating art for society for hundreds if not thousands of years. Only two women were well known during the Renaissance, and both had relatives that were famous and provided access to customers. Art was not a job for women.

There were a few women painters/sculptors but they were rare. It wasn’t until the mid 1800s when women began being recognized as art makers. They must be a reason for this.

We must not think that this is a problem that has been solved. Statistics have shown that twice as many women majored in art while in college, but museum show twice the number of men than women.

Numbers do tell a story, and it is not good.

One of the great crimes of humanity was/is the lack of encouragement for women to make images. For thousands of years it was not even the lack of encouragement, but actual banishment.

I’ve been reading about the first images being cave paintings, only because they were somewhat protected from the elements, I’m sure there were other examples that were earlier, but they disappeared. It’s interesting how the writers never address the gender of the image makers. But I still get the opinion that in the writer’s opinion they were male.

I’m not so sure, the passage into the caves were quite small, easier for less muscled bodies. It has been assumed by some that entering the cave was some sort of

‘Rite of Passage’, or proving bravery by going in to view the images. I can see that, but it makes perfect sense that the leader of the campfire set everything up ahead of time.

In any case, until at least the 19th century there seems like one woman artist out of every hundred. I thought I would explore some of the lesser known in addition to the few famous.

These are tribute images, as I attempt to understand their images by re-imagining, so please look up their originals

Ohhh, the Renaissance! My first serious love in images, and I have neglected you so!

It turns out that it is just a few degrees beyond my skill set. So, I’m not satisfied with my redrawing/filtering. But, since it’s only a few degrees, sometimes I make some interesting images, not better, but not worse.

Well, I can correct a few things, the proportions are sometimes out of whack, maybe some head shapes are too traditional… And there are lots of cracked paint and dim colors, so here are some of my Renaissance re-imaging.

I find that redrawing some of my favorite pieces by my favorite artists gives me some additional knowledge. I’m not saying that it’s an improvement, but sometimes I correct what seems to me an oddity. Sometimes it’s just a common style. Women with arms the size of most men’s legs for example. Often during the Renaissance the women looked more like football lineman.

Now, it could be said that the models were exactly like that, who is to say? We don’t have photographs!

But we do have some photos of the models for some of the later art movements. When I come across some of the more high resolution photos, I try to render the image more or less in the style of the artist.

This is the favorite muse/model of Gustave Klimt. Her name is Emilie Floge. She is the source of dozens of images by Klimt. She was an important fashion designer in Vienna and a successful businesswoman. She was also a lifetime partner of Gustave Klimt and inherited half of his estate when he died in 1918. Emilie died in 1952 at the age of 77.

I have copied the famous “Creation of Adam” many times, the almost touching of the Divine finger is a brilliant composition.

But Adam is already fully formed, the common name for the panel of the Sistine Chapel is wrong. G-d is bringing the gift of a helpmate to Adam. Eve is under G-d’s arm in the billowing folds of His robes, surrounded by several cherubs.

And I must say that Eve’s expression doesn’t seem to approve. What is Michelangelo saying?

I’ve just read an article that the shape of G-d’s red robe resembles the human brain, with the basic parts, including the brain stem. Was this part of Michelangelo’s intent?

I spent several more hours redrawing some other panels of the chapel, then I found some unfinished sketches that I tried to finish in my tribute. I now have many more questions with no answers.

I dreamt I was a guest at the home of a powerful family, perhaps I was only the guest of a lesser member of the family.

There were the central tables in the dining room, where voices could be shared, and with just a little more volume, could be heard quite clearly.

Then there were tables on the edge of center, slightly around a pillar or two, in the same room, but not in the same location. That is where the person who invited me sat with his small family. I sat on a chair at the edge of his table. A position that was edge of the edge, with no formal place setting.

Someone from the center tables made notice of my presence, and made a remark. I’m not sure who it was addressed to, he didn’t look at me while he spoke, but I heard my name, and saw a vague gesture.

There seemed to be a “slight” attached to the remark, something along the lines of, “At least he doesn’t have to decide which fork to use.”

This pointed out that the lesser family could invite guests, but that they wouldn’t necessarily be served, or be allowed to eat. At he same time it made the suggestion that the quality of the guest of the lesser family was not up to the social standards of the table.

Then I realized in the dream, that it wasn’t about me. I was being used to abuse the lesser family in an accepted indirect manner.

At the end of his remark, several heads turned to me to see if I had anything to say. I thanked my host for inviting me, I mentioned that I have access to great food in other places, but for now, it is his company that I desire, and that doesn’t require a fork.

Why the dream? Because we often lead lives of “coulda, woulda, shoulda.” But not in a dream.

Oh my…

Even though I had three girls, I never learned to respect the qualities of glitter. It was always too much, too much visual scatter, too much attention getting, and too much everywhere.

And here I am, trying to master the art of applying gold leaf to images.

I’m telling myself that it is tolerable because it is actual gold.

Finely beaten sheets of gold, 2 inches by 2 inches square. So thin that a slow exhale will send the sheet flying. If you think Saran Wrap is problematic by folding onto itself in multiple layers, wait until a sheet of gold leaf goes origami. Any attempt to right itself will tear it to pieces.

The theory is that you apply a thin water based adhesive to an area, wait until it dries a magical unknown amount of time, then lay down the sheet of gold, brushing it with a stiff flat brush. Here is where the theory comes in… the brush will scrub away the gold that does not have adhesive. Sometimes it peals off mini sheets of gold leaf. Sometimes it makes gold glitter that goes everywhere. In the air, on your clothes, in your beard, in your hair, all over your art work.

You can’t brush it away, it doesn’t disappear, it just goes to live somewhere else. You can’t scrape it up in a pile to throw it away, it sticks to anything temporarily, then unmindfully detaches, and goes on a fitful journey to stick somewhere else.

It’s been hours of attempted clean up, and flecks are still popping up everywhere.

But oh, what an effect it has on the artwork! Klimt was right to use it so much. It changes everything, enriches, gives the image panache, style, and magic.

It is worth exploring the right mixture of adhesive to water, it is worth exploring how long you wait for the mixture to dry a little before laying down the gold leaf. It is worth exploring how to work slowly, applying smaller areas of gold, making less glitter, allowing you to reapply small bits of gold sheet held with twizzers.

And definitely it is best to apply some sort of fixative afterwards.

I did learn some things, some a little too late.

As always, once a depth is reached you find even more that are just out of reach, so you think, go deeper. You never know what you don’t know.

I found my favorite thing, sketches that are incomplete, but they inspire me to take up the challenge. Sometimes I stay within a Klimt solution, sometimes I go my own wat, but always a tribute to Klimt.