subsection

ラオコーン像

The group was unearthed in February 1506 in the vineyard of Felice De Fredis; informed of the fact, Pope Julius II, an enthusiastic classicist, sent for his court artists.  Michelangelo was called to the site of the unearthing of the statue immediately after its discovery, along with the Florentine architect Giuliano da Sangallo and his eleven-year-old son Francesco da Sangallo, later a sculptor, who wrote an account over sixty years later:Julius acquired the group on March 23, giving De Fredis a job as a scribe as well as the customs revenues from one of the gates of Rome.  By August the group was placed for public viewing in a niche in the wall of the brand new Belvedere Garden at the Vatican, now part of the Vatican Museums, which regard this as the start of their history. As yet it had no base, which was not added until 1511, and from various prints and drawings from the time the older son appears to have been completely detached from the rest of the group.In July 1798 the statue was taken to France in the wake of the French conquest of Italy, though the replacement parts were left in Rome. It was on display when the new Musée Central des Arts, later the Musée Napoléon, opened at the Louvre in November 1800.  A competition was announced for new parts to complete the composition, but there were no entries. Some plaster sections by François Girardon, over 150 years old, were used instead.  After Napoleon's final defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 most  of the artworks plundered by the French were returned, and the ocoön reached Rome in January 1816.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の影響に関するルネサンスを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Battle of Waterloo
Francesco da Sangallo
François Girardon
Giuliano da Sangallo
Louvre
Michelangelo
Louvre
Napoleon
Pope Julius II


subsection

ラオコーン像

The group was unearthed in February 1506 in the vineyard of Felice De Fredis; informed of the fact, Pope Julius II, an enthusiastic classicist, sent for his court artists.  Michelangelo was called to the site of the unearthing of the statue immediately after its discovery, along with the Florentine architect Giuliano da Sangallo and his eleven-year-old son Francesco da Sangallo, later a sculptor, who wrote an account over sixty years later:Julius acquired the group on March 23, giving De Fredis a job as a scribe as well as the customs revenues from one of the gates of Rome.  By August the group was placed for public viewing in a niche in the wall of the brand new Belvedere Garden at the Vatican, now part of the Vatican Museums, which regard this as the start of their history. As yet it had no base, which was not added until 1511, and from various prints and drawings from the time the older son appears to have been completely detached from the rest of the group.In July 1798 the statue was taken to France in the wake of the French conquest of Italy, though the replacement parts were left in Rome. It was on display when the new Musée Central des Arts, later the Musée Napoléon, opened at the Louvre in November 1800.  A competition was announced for new parts to complete the composition, but there were no entries. Some plaster sections by François Girardon, over 150 years old, were used instead.  After Napoleon's final defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 most  of the artworks plundered by the French were returned, and the ocoön reached Rome in January 1816.

Prompt: ラオコーン像では、どのように影響のルネサンスが説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Battle of Waterloo
Francesco da Sangallo
François Girardon
Giuliano da Sangallo
Louvre
Michelangelo
Louvre
Napoleon
Pope Julius II


subsection

ラオコーン像

The group was unearthed in February 1506 in the vineyard of Felice De Fredis; informed of the fact, Pope Julius II, an enthusiastic classicist, sent for his court artists.  Michelangelo was called to the site of the unearthing of the statue immediately after its discovery, along with the Florentine architect Giuliano da Sangallo and his eleven-year-old son Francesco da Sangallo, later a sculptor, who wrote an account over sixty years later:Julius acquired the group on March 23, giving De Fredis a job as a scribe as well as the customs revenues from one of the gates of Rome.  By August the group was placed for public viewing in a niche in the wall of the brand new Belvedere Garden at the Vatican, now part of the Vatican Museums, which regard this as the start of their history. As yet it had no base, which was not added until 1511, and from various prints and drawings from the time the older son appears to have been completely detached from the rest of the group.In July 1798 the statue was taken to France in the wake of the French conquest of Italy, though the replacement parts were left in Rome. It was on display when the new Musée Central des Arts, later the Musée Napoléon, opened at the Louvre in November 1800.  A competition was announced for new parts to complete the composition, but there were no entries. Some plaster sections by François Girardon, over 150 years old, were used instead.  After Napoleon's final defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 most  of the artworks plundered by the French were returned, and the ocoön reached Rome in January 1816.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の影響におけるルネサンスの特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Battle of Waterloo
Francesco da Sangallo
François Girardon
Giuliano da Sangallo
Louvre
Michelangelo
Louvre
Napoleon
Pope Julius II


subsection

ラオコーン像

When the statue was discovered, ocoön's right arm was missing, along with part of the hand of one son and the right arm of the other, and various sections of the snake. The older son, on the right, was detached from the other two figures.  The age of the altar used as a seat by ocoön remains uncertain.  Artists and connoisseurs debated how the missing parts should be interpreted. Michelangelo suggested that the missing right arms were originally bent back over the shoulder. Others, however, believed it was more appropriate to show the right arms extended outwards in a heroic gesture.According to Vasari, in about 1510 Bramante, the Pope's architect, held an informal contest among sculptors to make replacement right arms, which was judged by Raphael, and won by Jacopo Sansovino. The winner, in the outstretched position, was used in copies but not attached to the original group, which remained as it was until 1532, when Giovanni Antonio Montorsoli, a pupil of Michelangelo, added his even more straight version of ocoön's outstretched arm, which remained in place until modern times.  In 1725–1727 Agostino Cornacchini added a section to the younger son's arm, and after 1816 Antonio Canova tidied up the group after their return from Paris, without being convinced by the correctness of the additions but wishing to avoid a controversy.In 1906 Ludwig Pollak, archaeologist, art dealer and director of the Museo Barracco, discovered a fragment of a marble arm in a builder's yard in Rome, close to where the group was found. Noting a stylistic similarity to the ocoön group he presented it to the Vatican Museums: it remained in their storerooms for half a century. In 1957 the museum decided that this armbent, as Michelangelo had suggestedhad originally belonged to this ocoön, and replaced it. According to Paolo Liverani: "Remarkably, despite the lack of a critical section, the join between the torso and the arm was guaranteed by a drill hole on one piece which aligned perfectly with a corresponding hole on the other."In the 1980s the statue was dismantled and reassembled, again with the Pollak arm incorporated.  The restored portions of the sons' arms and hands were removed. In the course of disassembly, it was possible to observe breaks, cuttings, metal tenons, and dowel holes which suggested that in antiquity, a more compact, three-dimensional pyramidal grouping of the three figures had been used or at least contemplated. According to Seymour Howard, both the Vatican group and the Sperlonga sculptures "show a similar taste for open and flexible pictorial organization that called for pyrotechnic piercing and lent itself to changes at the site, and in new situations".  The findings Seymour Howard documented do not change his belief about the organization of the original. But dating the reworked coil ends by measuring the depth of the surface crust and comparing the metal dowels in the original and reworked portions allows one to determine the provenance of the parts and the sequence of the repairs.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の文脈で、修復と影響を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Agostino Cornacchini
Antonio Canova
Jacopo Sansovino
Ludwig Pollak
Michelangelo


subsection

ラオコーン像

When the statue was discovered, ocoön's right arm was missing, along with part of the hand of one son and the right arm of the other, and various sections of the snake. The older son, on the right, was detached from the other two figures.  The age of the altar used as a seat by ocoön remains uncertain.  Artists and connoisseurs debated how the missing parts should be interpreted. Michelangelo suggested that the missing right arms were originally bent back over the shoulder. Others, however, believed it was more appropriate to show the right arms extended outwards in a heroic gesture.According to Vasari, in about 1510 Bramante, the Pope's architect, held an informal contest among sculptors to make replacement right arms, which was judged by Raphael, and won by Jacopo Sansovino. The winner, in the outstretched position, was used in copies but not attached to the original group, which remained as it was until 1532, when Giovanni Antonio Montorsoli, a pupil of Michelangelo, added his even more straight version of ocoön's outstretched arm, which remained in place until modern times.  In 1725–1727 Agostino Cornacchini added a section to the younger son's arm, and after 1816 Antonio Canova tidied up the group after their return from Paris, without being convinced by the correctness of the additions but wishing to avoid a controversy.In 1906 Ludwig Pollak, archaeologist, art dealer and director of the Museo Barracco, discovered a fragment of a marble arm in a builder's yard in Rome, close to where the group was found. Noting a stylistic similarity to the ocoön group he presented it to the Vatican Museums: it remained in their storerooms for half a century. In 1957 the museum decided that this armbent, as Michelangelo had suggestedhad originally belonged to this ocoön, and replaced it. According to Paolo Liverani: "Remarkably, despite the lack of a critical section, the join between the torso and the arm was guaranteed by a drill hole on one piece which aligned perfectly with a corresponding hole on the other."In the 1980s the statue was dismantled and reassembled, again with the Pollak arm incorporated.  The restored portions of the sons' arms and hands were removed. In the course of disassembly, it was possible to observe breaks, cuttings, metal tenons, and dowel holes which suggested that in antiquity, a more compact, three-dimensional pyramidal grouping of the three figures had been used or at least contemplated. According to Seymour Howard, both the Vatican group and the Sperlonga sculptures "show a similar taste for open and flexible pictorial organization that called for pyrotechnic piercing and lent itself to changes at the site, and in new situations".  The findings Seymour Howard documented do not change his belief about the organization of the original. But dating the reworked coil ends by measuring the depth of the surface crust and comparing the metal dowels in the original and reworked portions allows one to determine the provenance of the parts and the sequence of the repairs.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の影響に関する修復を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Agostino Cornacchini
Antonio Canova
Jacopo Sansovino
Ludwig Pollak
Michelangelo


subsection

ラオコーン像

When the statue was discovered, ocoön's right arm was missing, along with part of the hand of one son and the right arm of the other, and various sections of the snake. The older son, on the right, was detached from the other two figures.  The age of the altar used as a seat by ocoön remains uncertain.  Artists and connoisseurs debated how the missing parts should be interpreted. Michelangelo suggested that the missing right arms were originally bent back over the shoulder. Others, however, believed it was more appropriate to show the right arms extended outwards in a heroic gesture.According to Vasari, in about 1510 Bramante, the Pope's architect, held an informal contest among sculptors to make replacement right arms, which was judged by Raphael, and won by Jacopo Sansovino. The winner, in the outstretched position, was used in copies but not attached to the original group, which remained as it was until 1532, when Giovanni Antonio Montorsoli, a pupil of Michelangelo, added his even more straight version of ocoön's outstretched arm, which remained in place until modern times.  In 1725–1727 Agostino Cornacchini added a section to the younger son's arm, and after 1816 Antonio Canova tidied up the group after their return from Paris, without being convinced by the correctness of the additions but wishing to avoid a controversy.In 1906 Ludwig Pollak, archaeologist, art dealer and director of the Museo Barracco, discovered a fragment of a marble arm in a builder's yard in Rome, close to where the group was found. Noting a stylistic similarity to the ocoön group he presented it to the Vatican Museums: it remained in their storerooms for half a century. In 1957 the museum decided that this armbent, as Michelangelo had suggestedhad originally belonged to this ocoön, and replaced it. According to Paolo Liverani: "Remarkably, despite the lack of a critical section, the join between the torso and the arm was guaranteed by a drill hole on one piece which aligned perfectly with a corresponding hole on the other."In the 1980s the statue was dismantled and reassembled, again with the Pollak arm incorporated.  The restored portions of the sons' arms and hands were removed. In the course of disassembly, it was possible to observe breaks, cuttings, metal tenons, and dowel holes which suggested that in antiquity, a more compact, three-dimensional pyramidal grouping of the three figures had been used or at least contemplated. According to Seymour Howard, both the Vatican group and the Sperlonga sculptures "show a similar taste for open and flexible pictorial organization that called for pyrotechnic piercing and lent itself to changes at the site, and in new situations".  The findings Seymour Howard documented do not change his belief about the organization of the original. But dating the reworked coil ends by measuring the depth of the surface crust and comparing the metal dowels in the original and reworked portions allows one to determine the provenance of the parts and the sequence of the repairs.

Prompt: ラオコーン像では、どのように影響の修復が説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Agostino Cornacchini
Antonio Canova
Jacopo Sansovino
Ludwig Pollak
Michelangelo


subsection

ラオコーン像

When the statue was discovered, ocoön's right arm was missing, along with part of the hand of one son and the right arm of the other, and various sections of the snake. The older son, on the right, was detached from the other two figures.  The age of the altar used as a seat by ocoön remains uncertain.  Artists and connoisseurs debated how the missing parts should be interpreted. Michelangelo suggested that the missing right arms were originally bent back over the shoulder. Others, however, believed it was more appropriate to show the right arms extended outwards in a heroic gesture.According to Vasari, in about 1510 Bramante, the Pope's architect, held an informal contest among sculptors to make replacement right arms, which was judged by Raphael, and won by Jacopo Sansovino. The winner, in the outstretched position, was used in copies but not attached to the original group, which remained as it was until 1532, when Giovanni Antonio Montorsoli, a pupil of Michelangelo, added his even more straight version of ocoön's outstretched arm, which remained in place until modern times.  In 1725–1727 Agostino Cornacchini added a section to the younger son's arm, and after 1816 Antonio Canova tidied up the group after their return from Paris, without being convinced by the correctness of the additions but wishing to avoid a controversy.In 1906 Ludwig Pollak, archaeologist, art dealer and director of the Museo Barracco, discovered a fragment of a marble arm in a builder's yard in Rome, close to where the group was found. Noting a stylistic similarity to the ocoön group he presented it to the Vatican Museums: it remained in their storerooms for half a century. In 1957 the museum decided that this armbent, as Michelangelo had suggestedhad originally belonged to this ocoön, and replaced it. According to Paolo Liverani: "Remarkably, despite the lack of a critical section, the join between the torso and the arm was guaranteed by a drill hole on one piece which aligned perfectly with a corresponding hole on the other."In the 1980s the statue was dismantled and reassembled, again with the Pollak arm incorporated.  The restored portions of the sons' arms and hands were removed. In the course of disassembly, it was possible to observe breaks, cuttings, metal tenons, and dowel holes which suggested that in antiquity, a more compact, three-dimensional pyramidal grouping of the three figures had been used or at least contemplated. According to Seymour Howard, both the Vatican group and the Sperlonga sculptures "show a similar taste for open and flexible pictorial organization that called for pyrotechnic piercing and lent itself to changes at the site, and in new situations".  The findings Seymour Howard documented do not change his belief about the organization of the original. But dating the reworked coil ends by measuring the depth of the surface crust and comparing the metal dowels in the original and reworked portions allows one to determine the provenance of the parts and the sequence of the repairs.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の影響における修復の特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Agostino Cornacchini
Antonio Canova
Jacopo Sansovino
Ludwig Pollak
Michelangelo


subsection

ラオコーン像

Pliny's description of ocoön as "a work to be preferred to all that the arts of painting and sculpture have produced" has led to a tradition which debates this claim that the sculpture is the greatest of all artworks. Johann Joachim Winckelmann  wrote about the paradox of admiring beauty while seeing a scene of death and failure.  The most influential contribution to the debate, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's essay ocoon: An Essay on the Limits of Painting and Poetry, examines the differences between visual and literary art by comparing the sculpture with Virgil's verse. He argues that the artists could not realistically depict the physical suffering of the victims, as this would be too painful. Instead, they had to express suffering while retaining beauty.Johann Goethe said the following in his essay, Upon the ocoon "A true work of art, like a work of nature, never ceases to open boundlessly before the mind. We examine,we are impressed with it,it produces its effect; but it can never be all comprehended, still less can its essence, its value, be expressed in words.The most unusual intervention in the debate, William Blake's annotated print ocoön, surrounds the image with graffiti-like commentary in several languages, written in multiple directions. Blake presents the sculpture as a mediocre copy of a lost Israelite original, describing it as "Jehovah & his two Sons Satan & Adam as they were copied from the Cherubim Of Solomons Temple by three Rhodians & applied to Natural Fact or History of Ilium". This reflects Blake's theory that the imitation of ancient Greek and Roman art was destructive to the creative imagination, and that Classical sculpture represented a banal naturalism in contrast to Judeo-Christian spiritual art.The central figure of ocoön served as loose inspiration for the Indian in Horatio Greenough's The Rescue , which stood before the east façade of the United States Capitol for over 100 years.Near the end of Charles Dickens' 1843 novella, A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge self-describes "making a perfect ocoön of himself with his stockings" in his hurry to dress on Christmas morning.John Ruskin disliked the sculpture and compared its "disgusting convulsions" unfavourably with work by Michelangelo, whose fresco of The Brazen Serpent, on a corner pendentive of the Sistine Chapel, also involves figures struggling with snakesthe fiery serpents of the Book of Numbers. He invited contrast between the "meagre lines and contemptible tortures of the ocoon" and the "awfulness and quietness" of Michelangelo, saying "the slaughter of the Dardan priest" was "entirely wanting" in sublimity. at the Henry Moore Institute in turn copied this title while exhibiting work by modern artists influenced by the sculpture.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の文脈で、ラオコーンと影響を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

A Christmas Carol
Book of Numbers
Charles Dickens
Classical sculpture
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
Horatio Greenough
Johann Joachim Winckelmann
John Ruskin
Michelangelo


subsection

ラオコーン像

Pliny's description of ocoön as "a work to be preferred to all that the arts of painting and sculpture have produced" has led to a tradition which debates this claim that the sculpture is the greatest of all artworks. Johann Joachim Winckelmann  wrote about the paradox of admiring beauty while seeing a scene of death and failure.  The most influential contribution to the debate, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's essay ocoon: An Essay on the Limits of Painting and Poetry, examines the differences between visual and literary art by comparing the sculpture with Virgil's verse. He argues that the artists could not realistically depict the physical suffering of the victims, as this would be too painful. Instead, they had to express suffering while retaining beauty.Johann Goethe said the following in his essay, Upon the ocoon "A true work of art, like a work of nature, never ceases to open boundlessly before the mind. We examine,we are impressed with it,it produces its effect; but it can never be all comprehended, still less can its essence, its value, be expressed in words.The most unusual intervention in the debate, William Blake's annotated print ocoön, surrounds the image with graffiti-like commentary in several languages, written in multiple directions. Blake presents the sculpture as a mediocre copy of a lost Israelite original, describing it as "Jehovah & his two Sons Satan & Adam as they were copied from the Cherubim Of Solomons Temple by three Rhodians & applied to Natural Fact or History of Ilium". This reflects Blake's theory that the imitation of ancient Greek and Roman art was destructive to the creative imagination, and that Classical sculpture represented a banal naturalism in contrast to Judeo-Christian spiritual art.The central figure of ocoön served as loose inspiration for the Indian in Horatio Greenough's The Rescue , which stood before the east façade of the United States Capitol for over 100 years.Near the end of Charles Dickens' 1843 novella, A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge self-describes "making a perfect ocoön of himself with his stockings" in his hurry to dress on Christmas morning.John Ruskin disliked the sculpture and compared its "disgusting convulsions" unfavourably with work by Michelangelo, whose fresco of The Brazen Serpent, on a corner pendentive of the Sistine Chapel, also involves figures struggling with snakesthe fiery serpents of the Book of Numbers. He invited contrast between the "meagre lines and contemptible tortures of the ocoon" and the "awfulness and quietness" of Michelangelo, saying "the slaughter of the Dardan priest" was "entirely wanting" in sublimity. at the Henry Moore Institute in turn copied this title while exhibiting work by modern artists influenced by the sculpture.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の影響に関するラオコーンを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

A Christmas Carol
Book of Numbers
Charles Dickens
Classical sculpture
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
Horatio Greenough
Johann Joachim Winckelmann
John Ruskin
Michelangelo


subsection

ラオコーン像

Pliny's description of ocoön as "a work to be preferred to all that the arts of painting and sculpture have produced" has led to a tradition which debates this claim that the sculpture is the greatest of all artworks. Johann Joachim Winckelmann  wrote about the paradox of admiring beauty while seeing a scene of death and failure.  The most influential contribution to the debate, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's essay ocoon: An Essay on the Limits of Painting and Poetry, examines the differences between visual and literary art by comparing the sculpture with Virgil's verse. He argues that the artists could not realistically depict the physical suffering of the victims, as this would be too painful. Instead, they had to express suffering while retaining beauty.Johann Goethe said the following in his essay, Upon the ocoon "A true work of art, like a work of nature, never ceases to open boundlessly before the mind. We examine,we are impressed with it,it produces its effect; but it can never be all comprehended, still less can its essence, its value, be expressed in words.The most unusual intervention in the debate, William Blake's annotated print ocoön, surrounds the image with graffiti-like commentary in several languages, written in multiple directions. Blake presents the sculpture as a mediocre copy of a lost Israelite original, describing it as "Jehovah & his two Sons Satan & Adam as they were copied from the Cherubim Of Solomons Temple by three Rhodians & applied to Natural Fact or History of Ilium". This reflects Blake's theory that the imitation of ancient Greek and Roman art was destructive to the creative imagination, and that Classical sculpture represented a banal naturalism in contrast to Judeo-Christian spiritual art.The central figure of ocoön served as loose inspiration for the Indian in Horatio Greenough's The Rescue , which stood before the east façade of the United States Capitol for over 100 years.Near the end of Charles Dickens' 1843 novella, A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge self-describes "making a perfect ocoön of himself with his stockings" in his hurry to dress on Christmas morning.John Ruskin disliked the sculpture and compared its "disgusting convulsions" unfavourably with work by Michelangelo, whose fresco of The Brazen Serpent, on a corner pendentive of the Sistine Chapel, also involves figures struggling with snakesthe fiery serpents of the Book of Numbers. He invited contrast between the "meagre lines and contemptible tortures of the ocoon" and the "awfulness and quietness" of Michelangelo, saying "the slaughter of the Dardan priest" was "entirely wanting" in sublimity. at the Henry Moore Institute in turn copied this title while exhibiting work by modern artists influenced by the sculpture.

Prompt: ラオコーン像では、どのように影響のラオコーンが説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

A Christmas Carol
Book of Numbers
Charles Dickens
Classical sculpture
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
Horatio Greenough
Johann Joachim Winckelmann
John Ruskin
Michelangelo


subsection

ラオコーン像

Pliny's description of ocoön as "a work to be preferred to all that the arts of painting and sculpture have produced" has led to a tradition which debates this claim that the sculpture is the greatest of all artworks. Johann Joachim Winckelmann  wrote about the paradox of admiring beauty while seeing a scene of death and failure.  The most influential contribution to the debate, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's essay ocoon: An Essay on the Limits of Painting and Poetry, examines the differences between visual and literary art by comparing the sculpture with Virgil's verse. He argues that the artists could not realistically depict the physical suffering of the victims, as this would be too painful. Instead, they had to express suffering while retaining beauty.Johann Goethe said the following in his essay, Upon the ocoon "A true work of art, like a work of nature, never ceases to open boundlessly before the mind. We examine,we are impressed with it,it produces its effect; but it can never be all comprehended, still less can its essence, its value, be expressed in words.The most unusual intervention in the debate, William Blake's annotated print ocoön, surrounds the image with graffiti-like commentary in several languages, written in multiple directions. Blake presents the sculpture as a mediocre copy of a lost Israelite original, describing it as "Jehovah & his two Sons Satan & Adam as they were copied from the Cherubim Of Solomons Temple by three Rhodians & applied to Natural Fact or History of Ilium". This reflects Blake's theory that the imitation of ancient Greek and Roman art was destructive to the creative imagination, and that Classical sculpture represented a banal naturalism in contrast to Judeo-Christian spiritual art.The central figure of ocoön served as loose inspiration for the Indian in Horatio Greenough's The Rescue , which stood before the east façade of the United States Capitol for over 100 years.Near the end of Charles Dickens' 1843 novella, A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge self-describes "making a perfect ocoön of himself with his stockings" in his hurry to dress on Christmas morning.John Ruskin disliked the sculpture and compared its "disgusting convulsions" unfavourably with work by Michelangelo, whose fresco of The Brazen Serpent, on a corner pendentive of the Sistine Chapel, also involves figures struggling with snakesthe fiery serpents of the Book of Numbers. He invited contrast between the "meagre lines and contemptible tortures of the ocoon" and the "awfulness and quietness" of Michelangelo, saying "the slaughter of the Dardan priest" was "entirely wanting" in sublimity. at the Henry Moore Institute in turn copied this title while exhibiting work by modern artists influenced by the sculpture.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の影響におけるラオコーンの特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

A Christmas Carol
Book of Numbers
Charles Dickens
Classical sculpture
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
Horatio Greenough
Johann Joachim Winckelmann
John Ruskin
Michelangelo


subsubsection

ラオコーン像

In Pliny's survey of Greek and Roman stone sculpture in his encyclopedic Natural History , he says:It is generally accepted that this is the same work as is now in the Vatican.  It is now very often thought that the three Rhodians were copyists, perhaps of a bronze sculpture from Pergamon, created around 200 BC. It is noteworthy that Pliny does not address this issue explicitly, in a way that suggests "he regards it as an original".  Pliny states that it was located in the palace of the emperor Titus, and it is possible that it remained in the same place until 1506 . He also asserts that it was carved from a single piece of marble, though the Vatican work comprises at least seven interlocking pieces.  The phrase translated above as "in concert"  is regarded by some as referring to their commission rather than the artists' method of working, giving in Nigel Spivey's translation: "[the artists] at the behest of council designed a group...", which Spivey takes to mean that the commission was by Titus, possibly even advised by Pliny among other savants.The same three artists' names, though in a different order , with the names of their fathers, are inscribed on one of the sculptures at Tiberius's villa at Sperlonga , but it seems likely that not all the three masters were the same individuals.  Though broadly similar in style, many aspects of the execution of the two groups are drastically different, with the ocoon group of much higher quality and finish.Some scholars used to think that honorific inscriptions found at Lindos in Rhodes dated Agesander and Athenodoros, recorded as priests, to a period after 42 BC, making the years 42 to 20 BC the most likely date for the ocoön group's creation.  Altogether eight "signatures"  of an Athenodoros are found on sculptures or bases for them, five of these from Italy. Some, including that from Sperlonga, record his father as Agesander.  The whole question remains the subject of academic debate.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の影響に焦点を当てて、主語についてのプリニウスを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsubsection

ラオコーン像

In Pliny's survey of Greek and Roman stone sculpture in his encyclopedic Natural History , he says:It is generally accepted that this is the same work as is now in the Vatican.  It is now very often thought that the three Rhodians were copyists, perhaps of a bronze sculpture from Pergamon, created around 200 BC. It is noteworthy that Pliny does not address this issue explicitly, in a way that suggests "he regards it as an original".  Pliny states that it was located in the palace of the emperor Titus, and it is possible that it remained in the same place until 1506 . He also asserts that it was carved from a single piece of marble, though the Vatican work comprises at least seven interlocking pieces.  The phrase translated above as "in concert"  is regarded by some as referring to their commission rather than the artists' method of working, giving in Nigel Spivey's translation: "[the artists] at the behest of council designed a group...", which Spivey takes to mean that the commission was by Titus, possibly even advised by Pliny among other savants.The same three artists' names, though in a different order , with the names of their fathers, are inscribed on one of the sculptures at Tiberius's villa at Sperlonga , but it seems likely that not all the three masters were the same individuals.  Though broadly similar in style, many aspects of the execution of the two groups are drastically different, with the ocoon group of much higher quality and finish.Some scholars used to think that honorific inscriptions found at Lindos in Rhodes dated Agesander and Athenodoros, recorded as priests, to a period after 42 BC, making the years 42 to 20 BC the most likely date for the ocoön group's creation.  Altogether eight "signatures"  of an Athenodoros are found on sculptures or bases for them, five of these from Italy. Some, including that from Sperlonga, record his father as Agesander.  The whole question remains the subject of academic debate.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の影響の主語に関するプリニウスを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsubsection

ラオコーン像

In Pliny's survey of Greek and Roman stone sculpture in his encyclopedic Natural History , he says:It is generally accepted that this is the same work as is now in the Vatican.  It is now very often thought that the three Rhodians were copyists, perhaps of a bronze sculpture from Pergamon, created around 200 BC. It is noteworthy that Pliny does not address this issue explicitly, in a way that suggests "he regards it as an original".  Pliny states that it was located in the palace of the emperor Titus, and it is possible that it remained in the same place until 1506 . He also asserts that it was carved from a single piece of marble, though the Vatican work comprises at least seven interlocking pieces.  The phrase translated above as "in concert"  is regarded by some as referring to their commission rather than the artists' method of working, giving in Nigel Spivey's translation: "[the artists] at the behest of council designed a group...", which Spivey takes to mean that the commission was by Titus, possibly even advised by Pliny among other savants.The same three artists' names, though in a different order , with the names of their fathers, are inscribed on one of the sculptures at Tiberius's villa at Sperlonga , but it seems likely that not all the three masters were the same individuals.  Though broadly similar in style, many aspects of the execution of the two groups are drastically different, with the ocoon group of much higher quality and finish.Some scholars used to think that honorific inscriptions found at Lindos in Rhodes dated Agesander and Athenodoros, recorded as priests, to a period after 42 BC, making the years 42 to 20 BC the most likely date for the ocoön group's creation.  Altogether eight "signatures"  of an Athenodoros are found on sculptures or bases for them, five of these from Italy. Some, including that from Sperlonga, record his father as Agesander.  The whole question remains the subject of academic debate.

Prompt: ラオコーン像に関して、影響の主語はプリニウスをどのように取り入れていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsubsection

ラオコーン像

In Pliny's survey of Greek and Roman stone sculpture in his encyclopedic Natural History , he says:It is generally accepted that this is the same work as is now in the Vatican.  It is now very often thought that the three Rhodians were copyists, perhaps of a bronze sculpture from Pergamon, created around 200 BC. It is noteworthy that Pliny does not address this issue explicitly, in a way that suggests "he regards it as an original".  Pliny states that it was located in the palace of the emperor Titus, and it is possible that it remained in the same place until 1506 . He also asserts that it was carved from a single piece of marble, though the Vatican work comprises at least seven interlocking pieces.  The phrase translated above as "in concert"  is regarded by some as referring to their commission rather than the artists' method of working, giving in Nigel Spivey's translation: "[the artists] at the behest of council designed a group...", which Spivey takes to mean that the commission was by Titus, possibly even advised by Pliny among other savants.The same three artists' names, though in a different order , with the names of their fathers, are inscribed on one of the sculptures at Tiberius's villa at Sperlonga , but it seems likely that not all the three masters were the same individuals.  Though broadly similar in style, many aspects of the execution of the two groups are drastically different, with the ocoon group of much higher quality and finish.Some scholars used to think that honorific inscriptions found at Lindos in Rhodes dated Agesander and Athenodoros, recorded as priests, to a period after 42 BC, making the years 42 to 20 BC the most likely date for the ocoön group's creation.  Altogether eight "signatures"  of an Athenodoros are found on sculptures or bases for them, five of these from Italy. Some, including that from Sperlonga, record his father as Agesander.  The whole question remains the subject of academic debate.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の影響について見たとき、その主語のプリニウスをどのように議論しますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

ラオコーン像

In Pliny's survey of Greek and Roman stone sculpture in his encyclopedic Natural History , he says:It is generally accepted that this is the same work as is now in the Vatican.  It is now very often thought that the three Rhodians were copyists, perhaps of a bronze sculpture from Pergamon, created around 200 BC. It is noteworthy that Pliny does not address this issue explicitly, in a way that suggests "he regards it as an original".  Pliny states that it was located in the palace of the emperor Titus, and it is possible that it remained in the same place until 1506 . He also asserts that it was carved from a single piece of marble, though the Vatican work comprises at least seven interlocking pieces.  The phrase translated above as "in concert"  is regarded by some as referring to their commission rather than the artists' method of working, giving in Nigel Spivey's translation: "[the artists] at the behest of council designed a group...", which Spivey takes to mean that the commission was by Titus, possibly even advised by Pliny among other savants.The same three artists' names, though in a different order , with the names of their fathers, are inscribed on one of the sculptures at Tiberius's villa at Sperlonga , but it seems likely that not all the three masters were the same individuals.  Though broadly similar in style, many aspects of the execution of the two groups are drastically different, with the ocoon group of much higher quality and finish.Some scholars used to think that honorific inscriptions found at Lindos in Rhodes dated Agesander and Athenodoros, recorded as priests, to a period after 42 BC, making the years 42 to 20 BC the most likely date for the ocoön group's creation.  Altogether eight "signatures"  of an Athenodoros are found on sculptures or bases for them, five of these from Italy. Some, including that from Sperlonga, record his father as Agesander.  The whole question remains the subject of academic debate.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の文脈で、プリニウスと古代を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

ラオコーン像

In Pliny's survey of Greek and Roman stone sculpture in his encyclopedic Natural History , he says:It is generally accepted that this is the same work as is now in the Vatican.  It is now very often thought that the three Rhodians were copyists, perhaps of a bronze sculpture from Pergamon, created around 200 BC. It is noteworthy that Pliny does not address this issue explicitly, in a way that suggests "he regards it as an original".  Pliny states that it was located in the palace of the emperor Titus, and it is possible that it remained in the same place until 1506 . He also asserts that it was carved from a single piece of marble, though the Vatican work comprises at least seven interlocking pieces.  The phrase translated above as "in concert"  is regarded by some as referring to their commission rather than the artists' method of working, giving in Nigel Spivey's translation: "[the artists] at the behest of council designed a group...", which Spivey takes to mean that the commission was by Titus, possibly even advised by Pliny among other savants.The same three artists' names, though in a different order , with the names of their fathers, are inscribed on one of the sculptures at Tiberius's villa at Sperlonga , but it seems likely that not all the three masters were the same individuals.  Though broadly similar in style, many aspects of the execution of the two groups are drastically different, with the ocoon group of much higher quality and finish.Some scholars used to think that honorific inscriptions found at Lindos in Rhodes dated Agesander and Athenodoros, recorded as priests, to a period after 42 BC, making the years 42 to 20 BC the most likely date for the ocoön group's creation.  Altogether eight "signatures"  of an Athenodoros are found on sculptures or bases for them, five of these from Italy. Some, including that from Sperlonga, record his father as Agesander.  The whole question remains the subject of academic debate.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の古代に関するプリニウスを説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

ラオコーン像

In Pliny's survey of Greek and Roman stone sculpture in his encyclopedic Natural History , he says:It is generally accepted that this is the same work as is now in the Vatican.  It is now very often thought that the three Rhodians were copyists, perhaps of a bronze sculpture from Pergamon, created around 200 BC. It is noteworthy that Pliny does not address this issue explicitly, in a way that suggests "he regards it as an original".  Pliny states that it was located in the palace of the emperor Titus, and it is possible that it remained in the same place until 1506 . He also asserts that it was carved from a single piece of marble, though the Vatican work comprises at least seven interlocking pieces.  The phrase translated above as "in concert"  is regarded by some as referring to their commission rather than the artists' method of working, giving in Nigel Spivey's translation: "[the artists] at the behest of council designed a group...", which Spivey takes to mean that the commission was by Titus, possibly even advised by Pliny among other savants.The same three artists' names, though in a different order , with the names of their fathers, are inscribed on one of the sculptures at Tiberius's villa at Sperlonga , but it seems likely that not all the three masters were the same individuals.  Though broadly similar in style, many aspects of the execution of the two groups are drastically different, with the ocoon group of much higher quality and finish.Some scholars used to think that honorific inscriptions found at Lindos in Rhodes dated Agesander and Athenodoros, recorded as priests, to a period after 42 BC, making the years 42 to 20 BC the most likely date for the ocoön group's creation.  Altogether eight "signatures"  of an Athenodoros are found on sculptures or bases for them, five of these from Italy. Some, including that from Sperlonga, record his father as Agesander.  The whole question remains the subject of academic debate.

Prompt: ラオコーン像では、どのように古代のプリニウスが説明されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


subsection

ラオコーン像

In Pliny's survey of Greek and Roman stone sculpture in his encyclopedic Natural History , he says:It is generally accepted that this is the same work as is now in the Vatican.  It is now very often thought that the three Rhodians were copyists, perhaps of a bronze sculpture from Pergamon, created around 200 BC. It is noteworthy that Pliny does not address this issue explicitly, in a way that suggests "he regards it as an original".  Pliny states that it was located in the palace of the emperor Titus, and it is possible that it remained in the same place until 1506 . He also asserts that it was carved from a single piece of marble, though the Vatican work comprises at least seven interlocking pieces.  The phrase translated above as "in concert"  is regarded by some as referring to their commission rather than the artists' method of working, giving in Nigel Spivey's translation: "[the artists] at the behest of council designed a group...", which Spivey takes to mean that the commission was by Titus, possibly even advised by Pliny among other savants.The same three artists' names, though in a different order , with the names of their fathers, are inscribed on one of the sculptures at Tiberius's villa at Sperlonga , but it seems likely that not all the three masters were the same individuals.  Though broadly similar in style, many aspects of the execution of the two groups are drastically different, with the ocoon group of much higher quality and finish.Some scholars used to think that honorific inscriptions found at Lindos in Rhodes dated Agesander and Athenodoros, recorded as priests, to a period after 42 BC, making the years 42 to 20 BC the most likely date for the ocoön group's creation.  Altogether eight "signatures"  of an Athenodoros are found on sculptures or bases for them, five of these from Italy. Some, including that from Sperlonga, record his father as Agesander.  The whole question remains the subject of academic debate.

Prompt: ラオコーン像の古代におけるプリニウスの特徴を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

赤い葡萄畑

F495JH1626 medium             = Oil on canvas height_metric      = 75 width_metric       = 93 height_imperial    = 29.5 width_imperial     = 36.6 metric_unit        = cm imperial_unit      = in city               = Moscow museum             = Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts}}The Red Vineyards near Arles is an oil painting by the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh, executed on a privately primed Toile de 30 piece of burlap in early November 1888.  It depicts workers in a vineyard, and it is the only painting known by name that Van Gogh sold in his lifetime.

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑に焦点を当てて、その抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

赤い葡萄畑

F495JH1626 medium             = Oil on canvas height_metric      = 75 width_metric       = 93 height_imperial    = 29.5 width_imperial     = 36.6 metric_unit        = cm imperial_unit      = in city               = Moscow museum             = Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts}}The Red Vineyards near Arles is an oil painting by the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh, executed on a privately primed Toile de 30 piece of burlap in early November 1888.  It depicts workers in a vineyard, and it is the only painting known by name that Van Gogh sold in his lifetime.

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑の抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

赤い葡萄畑

F495JH1626 medium             = Oil on canvas height_metric      = 75 width_metric       = 93 height_imperial    = 29.5 width_imperial     = 36.6 metric_unit        = cm imperial_unit      = in city               = Moscow museum             = Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts}}The Red Vineyards near Arles is an oil painting by the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh, executed on a privately primed Toile de 30 piece of burlap in early November 1888.  It depicts workers in a vineyard, and it is the only painting known by name that Van Gogh sold in his lifetime.

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑はどのように抽象を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

赤い葡萄畑

F495JH1626 medium             = Oil on canvas height_metric      = 75 width_metric       = 93 height_imperial    = 29.5 width_imperial     = 36.6 metric_unit        = cm imperial_unit      = in city               = Moscow museum             = Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts}}The Red Vineyards near Arles is an oil painting by the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh, executed on a privately primed Toile de 30 piece of burlap in early November 1888.  It depicts workers in a vineyard, and it is the only painting known by name that Van Gogh sold in his lifetime.

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑に関して、どのように抽象が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

赤い葡萄畑

The Red Vineyard was exhibited for the first time at the annual exhibition of Les XX, 1890, in Brussels, and sold for 400 francs to Belgian painter and collector Anna Boch, a member of Les XX. Anna was the sister of Eugène Boch, another impressionist painter and a friend of Van Gogh, whose portrait Van Gogh painted  in Arles in autumn 1888. In a later letter to his brother Theo discussing the sale, Van Gogh admitted with some embarrassment that the Bochs paid the Les XX 1890 Exhibition sticker price, when in fact they probably should have gotten a "friend's price".The painting was later purchased, in 1909, from a Paris art gallery by Ivan Morozov. After the Russian Revolution, the painting was subsequently nationalised by the Bolsheviks and was eventually passed to Moscow‘s Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, where it resides today.

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑に焦点を当てて、その歴史を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Anna Boch
Arles
Bolsheviks
Eugène Boch
Les XX
Russian Revolution
Vineyard


section

赤い葡萄畑

The Red Vineyard was exhibited for the first time at the annual exhibition of Les XX, 1890, in Brussels, and sold for 400 francs to Belgian painter and collector Anna Boch, a member of Les XX. Anna was the sister of Eugène Boch, another impressionist painter and a friend of Van Gogh, whose portrait Van Gogh painted  in Arles in autumn 1888. In a later letter to his brother Theo discussing the sale, Van Gogh admitted with some embarrassment that the Bochs paid the Les XX 1890 Exhibition sticker price, when in fact they probably should have gotten a "friend's price".The painting was later purchased, in 1909, from a Paris art gallery by Ivan Morozov. After the Russian Revolution, the painting was subsequently nationalised by the Bolsheviks and was eventually passed to Moscow‘s Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, where it resides today.

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑の歴史を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Anna Boch
Arles
Bolsheviks
Eugène Boch
Les XX
Russian Revolution
Vineyard


section

赤い葡萄畑

The Red Vineyard was exhibited for the first time at the annual exhibition of Les XX, 1890, in Brussels, and sold for 400 francs to Belgian painter and collector Anna Boch, a member of Les XX. Anna was the sister of Eugène Boch, another impressionist painter and a friend of Van Gogh, whose portrait Van Gogh painted  in Arles in autumn 1888. In a later letter to his brother Theo discussing the sale, Van Gogh admitted with some embarrassment that the Bochs paid the Les XX 1890 Exhibition sticker price, when in fact they probably should have gotten a "friend's price".The painting was later purchased, in 1909, from a Paris art gallery by Ivan Morozov. After the Russian Revolution, the painting was subsequently nationalised by the Bolsheviks and was eventually passed to Moscow‘s Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, where it resides today.

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑はどのように歴史を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Anna Boch
Arles
Bolsheviks
Eugène Boch
Les XX
Russian Revolution
Vineyard


section

赤い葡萄畑

The Red Vineyard was exhibited for the first time at the annual exhibition of Les XX, 1890, in Brussels, and sold for 400 francs to Belgian painter and collector Anna Boch, a member of Les XX. Anna was the sister of Eugène Boch, another impressionist painter and a friend of Van Gogh, whose portrait Van Gogh painted  in Arles in autumn 1888. In a later letter to his brother Theo discussing the sale, Van Gogh admitted with some embarrassment that the Bochs paid the Les XX 1890 Exhibition sticker price, when in fact they probably should have gotten a "friend's price".The painting was later purchased, in 1909, from a Paris art gallery by Ivan Morozov. After the Russian Revolution, the painting was subsequently nationalised by the Bolsheviks and was eventually passed to Moscow‘s Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, where it resides today.

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑に関して、どのように歴史が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Anna Boch
Arles
Bolsheviks
Eugène Boch
Les XX
Russian Revolution
Vineyard


section

赤い葡萄畑

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑に焦点を当てて、その参照を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

List of works by Vincent van Gogh
Vincent van Gogh


section

赤い葡萄畑

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑の参照を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

List of works by Vincent van Gogh
Vincent van Gogh


section

赤い葡萄畑

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑はどのように参照を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。

List of works by Vincent van Gogh
Vincent van Gogh


section

赤い葡萄畑

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑に関して、どのように参照が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

List of works by Vincent van Gogh
Vincent van Gogh


section

赤い葡萄畑

Hulsker, Jan. The Complete Van Gogh. Oxford: Phaidon, 1980. .Pickvance, Ronald. Van Gogh in Arles , Abrams, New York 1984. .

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑に焦点を当てて、その情報源を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

赤い葡萄畑

Hulsker, Jan. The Complete Van Gogh. Oxford: Phaidon, 1980. .Pickvance, Ronald. Van Gogh in Arles , Abrams, New York 1984. .

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑の情報源を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

赤い葡萄畑

Hulsker, Jan. The Complete Van Gogh. Oxford: Phaidon, 1980. .Pickvance, Ronald. Van Gogh in Arles , Abrams, New York 1984. .

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑はどのように情報源を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

赤い葡萄畑

Hulsker, Jan. The Complete Van Gogh. Oxford: Phaidon, 1980. .Pickvance, Ronald. Van Gogh in Arles , Abrams, New York 1984. .

Prompt: 赤い葡萄畑に関して、どのように情報源が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

メデューズ号の筏

image=JEAN LOUIS THÉODORE GÉRICAULT -  Balsa de la Medusa .jpg image_size=400px artist=Théodore Géricault year=1818–19 medium=Oil on canvas width_metric=716 height_imperial=16 height_inch=1 width_imperial= 23 width_inch=6 metric_unit=cm imperial_unit=ft museum=Louvre city=Paris}}The Raft of the Medusa  – originally titled Scène de Naufrage  – is an oil painting of 1818–19 by the French Romantic painter and lithographer Théodore Géricault . Completed when the artist was 27, the work has become an icon of French Romanticism. At , it is an over-life-size painting that depicts a moment from the aftermath of the wreck of the French naval frigate Méduse, which ran aground off the coast of today's Mauritania on 2 July 1816. On 5 July 1816, at least 147 people were set adrift on a hurriedly constructed raft; all but 15 died in the 13 days before their rescue, and those who survived endured starvation and dehydration and practiced cannibalism . The event became an international scandal, in part because its cause was widely attributed to the incompetence of the French captain.Géricault chose this large-scale uncommissioned work to launch his career, using a subject that had already generated widespread public interest. The event fascinated him, and before he began work on the final painting, he undertook extensive research and produced many preparatory sketches. He interviewed two of the survivors and constructed a detailed scale model of the raft. He visited hospitals and morgues where he could view, first-hand, the colour and texture of the flesh of the dying and dead. As he had anticipated, the painting proved highly controversial at its first appearance in the 1819 Paris Salon, attracting passionate praise and condemnation in equal measure. However, it established his international reputation and today is widely seen as seminal in the early history of the Romantic movement in French painting.Although The Raft of the Medusa retains elements of the traditions of history painting, in both its choice of subject matter and its dramatic presentation, it represents a break from the calm and order of the prevailing Neoclassical school. Géricault's work attracted wide attention from its first showing and was then exhibited in London. The Louvre acquired it soon after the artist's death at age 32. The painting's influence can be seen in the works of Eugène Delacroix, J. M. W. Turner, Gustave Courbet, and Édouard Manet.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏に焦点を当てて、その抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Eugène Delacroix
Gustave Courbet
J. M. W. Turner
Louvre


section

メデューズ号の筏

image=JEAN LOUIS THÉODORE GÉRICAULT -  Balsa de la Medusa .jpg image_size=400px artist=Théodore Géricault year=1818–19 medium=Oil on canvas width_metric=716 height_imperial=16 height_inch=1 width_imperial= 23 width_inch=6 metric_unit=cm imperial_unit=ft museum=Louvre city=Paris}}The Raft of the Medusa  – originally titled Scène de Naufrage  – is an oil painting of 1818–19 by the French Romantic painter and lithographer Théodore Géricault . Completed when the artist was 27, the work has become an icon of French Romanticism. At , it is an over-life-size painting that depicts a moment from the aftermath of the wreck of the French naval frigate Méduse, which ran aground off the coast of today's Mauritania on 2 July 1816. On 5 July 1816, at least 147 people were set adrift on a hurriedly constructed raft; all but 15 died in the 13 days before their rescue, and those who survived endured starvation and dehydration and practiced cannibalism . The event became an international scandal, in part because its cause was widely attributed to the incompetence of the French captain.Géricault chose this large-scale uncommissioned work to launch his career, using a subject that had already generated widespread public interest. The event fascinated him, and before he began work on the final painting, he undertook extensive research and produced many preparatory sketches. He interviewed two of the survivors and constructed a detailed scale model of the raft. He visited hospitals and morgues where he could view, first-hand, the colour and texture of the flesh of the dying and dead. As he had anticipated, the painting proved highly controversial at its first appearance in the 1819 Paris Salon, attracting passionate praise and condemnation in equal measure. However, it established his international reputation and today is widely seen as seminal in the early history of the Romantic movement in French painting.Although The Raft of the Medusa retains elements of the traditions of history painting, in both its choice of subject matter and its dramatic presentation, it represents a break from the calm and order of the prevailing Neoclassical school. Géricault's work attracted wide attention from its first showing and was then exhibited in London. The Louvre acquired it soon after the artist's death at age 32. The painting's influence can be seen in the works of Eugène Delacroix, J. M. W. Turner, Gustave Courbet, and Édouard Manet.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏の抽象を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Eugène Delacroix
Gustave Courbet
J. M. W. Turner
Louvre


section

メデューズ号の筏

image=JEAN LOUIS THÉODORE GÉRICAULT -  Balsa de la Medusa .jpg image_size=400px artist=Théodore Géricault year=1818–19 medium=Oil on canvas width_metric=716 height_imperial=16 height_inch=1 width_imperial= 23 width_inch=6 metric_unit=cm imperial_unit=ft museum=Louvre city=Paris}}The Raft of the Medusa  – originally titled Scène de Naufrage  – is an oil painting of 1818–19 by the French Romantic painter and lithographer Théodore Géricault . Completed when the artist was 27, the work has become an icon of French Romanticism. At , it is an over-life-size painting that depicts a moment from the aftermath of the wreck of the French naval frigate Méduse, which ran aground off the coast of today's Mauritania on 2 July 1816. On 5 July 1816, at least 147 people were set adrift on a hurriedly constructed raft; all but 15 died in the 13 days before their rescue, and those who survived endured starvation and dehydration and practiced cannibalism . The event became an international scandal, in part because its cause was widely attributed to the incompetence of the French captain.Géricault chose this large-scale uncommissioned work to launch his career, using a subject that had already generated widespread public interest. The event fascinated him, and before he began work on the final painting, he undertook extensive research and produced many preparatory sketches. He interviewed two of the survivors and constructed a detailed scale model of the raft. He visited hospitals and morgues where he could view, first-hand, the colour and texture of the flesh of the dying and dead. As he had anticipated, the painting proved highly controversial at its first appearance in the 1819 Paris Salon, attracting passionate praise and condemnation in equal measure. However, it established his international reputation and today is widely seen as seminal in the early history of the Romantic movement in French painting.Although The Raft of the Medusa retains elements of the traditions of history painting, in both its choice of subject matter and its dramatic presentation, it represents a break from the calm and order of the prevailing Neoclassical school. Géricault's work attracted wide attention from its first showing and was then exhibited in London. The Louvre acquired it soon after the artist's death at age 32. The painting's influence can be seen in the works of Eugène Delacroix, J. M. W. Turner, Gustave Courbet, and Édouard Manet.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏はどのように抽象を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Eugène Delacroix
Gustave Courbet
J. M. W. Turner
Louvre


section

メデューズ号の筏

image=JEAN LOUIS THÉODORE GÉRICAULT -  Balsa de la Medusa .jpg image_size=400px artist=Théodore Géricault year=1818–19 medium=Oil on canvas width_metric=716 height_imperial=16 height_inch=1 width_imperial= 23 width_inch=6 metric_unit=cm imperial_unit=ft museum=Louvre city=Paris}}The Raft of the Medusa  – originally titled Scène de Naufrage  – is an oil painting of 1818–19 by the French Romantic painter and lithographer Théodore Géricault . Completed when the artist was 27, the work has become an icon of French Romanticism. At , it is an over-life-size painting that depicts a moment from the aftermath of the wreck of the French naval frigate Méduse, which ran aground off the coast of today's Mauritania on 2 July 1816. On 5 July 1816, at least 147 people were set adrift on a hurriedly constructed raft; all but 15 died in the 13 days before their rescue, and those who survived endured starvation and dehydration and practiced cannibalism . The event became an international scandal, in part because its cause was widely attributed to the incompetence of the French captain.Géricault chose this large-scale uncommissioned work to launch his career, using a subject that had already generated widespread public interest. The event fascinated him, and before he began work on the final painting, he undertook extensive research and produced many preparatory sketches. He interviewed two of the survivors and constructed a detailed scale model of the raft. He visited hospitals and morgues where he could view, first-hand, the colour and texture of the flesh of the dying and dead. As he had anticipated, the painting proved highly controversial at its first appearance in the 1819 Paris Salon, attracting passionate praise and condemnation in equal measure. However, it established his international reputation and today is widely seen as seminal in the early history of the Romantic movement in French painting.Although The Raft of the Medusa retains elements of the traditions of history painting, in both its choice of subject matter and its dramatic presentation, it represents a break from the calm and order of the prevailing Neoclassical school. Géricault's work attracted wide attention from its first showing and was then exhibited in London. The Louvre acquired it soon after the artist's death at age 32. The painting's influence can be seen in the works of Eugène Delacroix, J. M. W. Turner, Gustave Courbet, and Édouard Manet.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏に関して、どのように抽象が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Eugène Delacroix
Gustave Courbet
J. M. W. Turner
Louvre


section

メデューズ号の筏

In June 1816, the French frigate Méduse, captained by Hugues Duroy de Chaumareys, departed from Rochefort, bound for the Senegalese port of Saint-Louis. She headed a convoy of three other ships: the storeship Loire, the brig Argus and the corvette Écho. Viscount Hugues Duroy de Chaumereys, a recently returned royalist émigré, had been appointed captain of the frigate by the newly restored Bourbon administration despite having scarcely sailed in 20 years. After the wreck, public outrage mistakenly attributed responsibility for his appointment to Louis XVIII, though this was a routine naval appointment made within the Ministry of the Navy and far outside the concerns of the monarch. The frigate's mission was to accept the British return of Senegal under the terms of France's acceptance of the Peace of Paris. The appointed French governor of Senegal, Colonel Julien-Désiré Schmaltz, and his wife and daughter were among the passengers.In an effort to make good time, the Méduse overtook the other ships, but due to poor navigation it drifted  off course. On 2 July, it ran aground on a sandbank off the West African coast, near today's Mauritania. The collision was widely blamed on the incompetence of De Chaumereys, a returned émigré who lacked experience and ability, but had been granted his commission as a result of an act of political preferment. Efforts to free the ship failed, so, on 5 July, the frightened passengers and crew started an attempt to travel the  to the African coast in the frigate's six boats. Although the Méduse was carrying 400 people, including 160 crew, there was space for only about 250 in the boats. The remainder of the ship's complement and half of a contingent of marine infantrymen intended to garrison Senegal—at least 146 men and one woman—were piled onto a hastily built raft, that partially submerged once it was loaded. Seventeen crew members opted to stay aboard the grounded Méduse. The captain and crew aboard the other boats intended to tow the raft, but after only a few miles the raft was turned loose. For sustenance the crew of the raft had only a bag of ship's biscuit , two casks of water  and six casks of wine.According to critic Jonathan Miles, the raft carried the survivors "to the frontiers of human experience. Crazed, parched and starved, they slaughtered mutineers, ate their dead companions and killed the weakest." After 13 days, on 17 July 1816, the raft was rescued by the Argus by chance—no particular search effort was made by the French for the raft. By this time only 15 men were still alive; the others had been killed or thrown overboard by their comrades, died of starvation, or had thrown themselves into the sea in despair. The incident became a huge public embarrassment for the French monarchy, only recently restored to power after Napoleon's defeat in 1815.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏に焦点を当てて、その背景を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Hugues Duroy de Chaumareys
Julien-Désiré Schmaltz


section

メデューズ号の筏

In June 1816, the French frigate Méduse, captained by Hugues Duroy de Chaumareys, departed from Rochefort, bound for the Senegalese port of Saint-Louis. She headed a convoy of three other ships: the storeship Loire, the brig Argus and the corvette Écho. Viscount Hugues Duroy de Chaumereys, a recently returned royalist émigré, had been appointed captain of the frigate by the newly restored Bourbon administration despite having scarcely sailed in 20 years. After the wreck, public outrage mistakenly attributed responsibility for his appointment to Louis XVIII, though this was a routine naval appointment made within the Ministry of the Navy and far outside the concerns of the monarch. The frigate's mission was to accept the British return of Senegal under the terms of France's acceptance of the Peace of Paris. The appointed French governor of Senegal, Colonel Julien-Désiré Schmaltz, and his wife and daughter were among the passengers.In an effort to make good time, the Méduse overtook the other ships, but due to poor navigation it drifted  off course. On 2 July, it ran aground on a sandbank off the West African coast, near today's Mauritania. The collision was widely blamed on the incompetence of De Chaumereys, a returned émigré who lacked experience and ability, but had been granted his commission as a result of an act of political preferment. Efforts to free the ship failed, so, on 5 July, the frightened passengers and crew started an attempt to travel the  to the African coast in the frigate's six boats. Although the Méduse was carrying 400 people, including 160 crew, there was space for only about 250 in the boats. The remainder of the ship's complement and half of a contingent of marine infantrymen intended to garrison Senegal—at least 146 men and one woman—were piled onto a hastily built raft, that partially submerged once it was loaded. Seventeen crew members opted to stay aboard the grounded Méduse. The captain and crew aboard the other boats intended to tow the raft, but after only a few miles the raft was turned loose. For sustenance the crew of the raft had only a bag of ship's biscuit , two casks of water  and six casks of wine.According to critic Jonathan Miles, the raft carried the survivors "to the frontiers of human experience. Crazed, parched and starved, they slaughtered mutineers, ate their dead companions and killed the weakest." After 13 days, on 17 July 1816, the raft was rescued by the Argus by chance—no particular search effort was made by the French for the raft. By this time only 15 men were still alive; the others had been killed or thrown overboard by their comrades, died of starvation, or had thrown themselves into the sea in despair. The incident became a huge public embarrassment for the French monarchy, only recently restored to power after Napoleon's defeat in 1815.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏の背景を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Hugues Duroy de Chaumareys
Julien-Désiré Schmaltz


section

メデューズ号の筏

In June 1816, the French frigate Méduse, captained by Hugues Duroy de Chaumareys, departed from Rochefort, bound for the Senegalese port of Saint-Louis. She headed a convoy of three other ships: the storeship Loire, the brig Argus and the corvette Écho. Viscount Hugues Duroy de Chaumereys, a recently returned royalist émigré, had been appointed captain of the frigate by the newly restored Bourbon administration despite having scarcely sailed in 20 years. After the wreck, public outrage mistakenly attributed responsibility for his appointment to Louis XVIII, though this was a routine naval appointment made within the Ministry of the Navy and far outside the concerns of the monarch. The frigate's mission was to accept the British return of Senegal under the terms of France's acceptance of the Peace of Paris. The appointed French governor of Senegal, Colonel Julien-Désiré Schmaltz, and his wife and daughter were among the passengers.In an effort to make good time, the Méduse overtook the other ships, but due to poor navigation it drifted  off course. On 2 July, it ran aground on a sandbank off the West African coast, near today's Mauritania. The collision was widely blamed on the incompetence of De Chaumereys, a returned émigré who lacked experience and ability, but had been granted his commission as a result of an act of political preferment. Efforts to free the ship failed, so, on 5 July, the frightened passengers and crew started an attempt to travel the  to the African coast in the frigate's six boats. Although the Méduse was carrying 400 people, including 160 crew, there was space for only about 250 in the boats. The remainder of the ship's complement and half of a contingent of marine infantrymen intended to garrison Senegal—at least 146 men and one woman—were piled onto a hastily built raft, that partially submerged once it was loaded. Seventeen crew members opted to stay aboard the grounded Méduse. The captain and crew aboard the other boats intended to tow the raft, but after only a few miles the raft was turned loose. For sustenance the crew of the raft had only a bag of ship's biscuit , two casks of water  and six casks of wine.According to critic Jonathan Miles, the raft carried the survivors "to the frontiers of human experience. Crazed, parched and starved, they slaughtered mutineers, ate their dead companions and killed the weakest." After 13 days, on 17 July 1816, the raft was rescued by the Argus by chance—no particular search effort was made by the French for the raft. By this time only 15 men were still alive; the others had been killed or thrown overboard by their comrades, died of starvation, or had thrown themselves into the sea in despair. The incident became a huge public embarrassment for the French monarchy, only recently restored to power after Napoleon's defeat in 1815.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏はどのように背景を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Hugues Duroy de Chaumareys
Julien-Désiré Schmaltz


section

メデューズ号の筏

In June 1816, the French frigate Méduse, captained by Hugues Duroy de Chaumareys, departed from Rochefort, bound for the Senegalese port of Saint-Louis. She headed a convoy of three other ships: the storeship Loire, the brig Argus and the corvette Écho. Viscount Hugues Duroy de Chaumereys, a recently returned royalist émigré, had been appointed captain of the frigate by the newly restored Bourbon administration despite having scarcely sailed in 20 years. After the wreck, public outrage mistakenly attributed responsibility for his appointment to Louis XVIII, though this was a routine naval appointment made within the Ministry of the Navy and far outside the concerns of the monarch. The frigate's mission was to accept the British return of Senegal under the terms of France's acceptance of the Peace of Paris. The appointed French governor of Senegal, Colonel Julien-Désiré Schmaltz, and his wife and daughter were among the passengers.In an effort to make good time, the Méduse overtook the other ships, but due to poor navigation it drifted  off course. On 2 July, it ran aground on a sandbank off the West African coast, near today's Mauritania. The collision was widely blamed on the incompetence of De Chaumereys, a returned émigré who lacked experience and ability, but had been granted his commission as a result of an act of political preferment. Efforts to free the ship failed, so, on 5 July, the frightened passengers and crew started an attempt to travel the  to the African coast in the frigate's six boats. Although the Méduse was carrying 400 people, including 160 crew, there was space for only about 250 in the boats. The remainder of the ship's complement and half of a contingent of marine infantrymen intended to garrison Senegal—at least 146 men and one woman—were piled onto a hastily built raft, that partially submerged once it was loaded. Seventeen crew members opted to stay aboard the grounded Méduse. The captain and crew aboard the other boats intended to tow the raft, but after only a few miles the raft was turned loose. For sustenance the crew of the raft had only a bag of ship's biscuit , two casks of water  and six casks of wine.According to critic Jonathan Miles, the raft carried the survivors "to the frontiers of human experience. Crazed, parched and starved, they slaughtered mutineers, ate their dead companions and killed the weakest." After 13 days, on 17 July 1816, the raft was rescued by the Argus by chance—no particular search effort was made by the French for the raft. By this time only 15 men were still alive; the others had been killed or thrown overboard by their comrades, died of starvation, or had thrown themselves into the sea in despair. The incident became a huge public embarrassment for the French monarchy, only recently restored to power after Napoleon's defeat in 1815.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏に関して、どのように背景が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Hugues Duroy de Chaumareys
Julien-Désiré Schmaltz


section

メデューズ号の筏

The Raft of the Medusa portrays the moment when, after 13 days adrift on the raft, the remaining 15 survivors view a ship approaching from a distance. According to an early British reviewer, the work is set at a moment when "the ruin of the raft may be said to be complete". and those in the foreground almost twice life-size, pushed close to the picture plane and crowding onto the viewer, who is drawn into the physical action as a participant. stands on an empty barrel and frantically waves his handkerchief to draw the ship's attention.The pictorial composition of the painting is constructed upon two pyramidal structures. The perimeter of the large mast on the left of the canvas forms the first. The horizontal grouping of dead and dying figures in the foreground forms the base from which the survivors emerge, surging upward towards the emotional peak, where the central figure waves desperately at a rescue ship.The viewer's attention is first drawn to the centre of the canvas, then follows the directional flow of the survivors' bodies, viewed from behind and straining to the right. Two other diagonal lines are used to heighten the dramatic tension. One follows the mast and its rigging and leads the viewer's eye towards an approaching wave that threatens to engulf the raft, while the second, composed of reaching figures, leads to the distant silhouette of the Argus, the ship that eventually rescued the survivors. The work's lighting has been described as "Caravaggesque", From the distant area of the rescue ship, a bright light shines, providing illumination to an otherwise dull brown scene.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏に焦点を当てて、その説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

メデューズ号の筏

The Raft of the Medusa portrays the moment when, after 13 days adrift on the raft, the remaining 15 survivors view a ship approaching from a distance. According to an early British reviewer, the work is set at a moment when "the ruin of the raft may be said to be complete". and those in the foreground almost twice life-size, pushed close to the picture plane and crowding onto the viewer, who is drawn into the physical action as a participant. stands on an empty barrel and frantically waves his handkerchief to draw the ship's attention.The pictorial composition of the painting is constructed upon two pyramidal structures. The perimeter of the large mast on the left of the canvas forms the first. The horizontal grouping of dead and dying figures in the foreground forms the base from which the survivors emerge, surging upward towards the emotional peak, where the central figure waves desperately at a rescue ship.The viewer's attention is first drawn to the centre of the canvas, then follows the directional flow of the survivors' bodies, viewed from behind and straining to the right. Two other diagonal lines are used to heighten the dramatic tension. One follows the mast and its rigging and leads the viewer's eye towards an approaching wave that threatens to engulf the raft, while the second, composed of reaching figures, leads to the distant silhouette of the Argus, the ship that eventually rescued the survivors. The work's lighting has been described as "Caravaggesque", From the distant area of the rescue ship, a bright light shines, providing illumination to an otherwise dull brown scene.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏の説明を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。


section

メデューズ号の筏

The Raft of the Medusa portrays the moment when, after 13 days adrift on the raft, the remaining 15 survivors view a ship approaching from a distance. According to an early British reviewer, the work is set at a moment when "the ruin of the raft may be said to be complete". and those in the foreground almost twice life-size, pushed close to the picture plane and crowding onto the viewer, who is drawn into the physical action as a participant. stands on an empty barrel and frantically waves his handkerchief to draw the ship's attention.The pictorial composition of the painting is constructed upon two pyramidal structures. The perimeter of the large mast on the left of the canvas forms the first. The horizontal grouping of dead and dying figures in the foreground forms the base from which the survivors emerge, surging upward towards the emotional peak, where the central figure waves desperately at a rescue ship.The viewer's attention is first drawn to the centre of the canvas, then follows the directional flow of the survivors' bodies, viewed from behind and straining to the right. Two other diagonal lines are used to heighten the dramatic tension. One follows the mast and its rigging and leads the viewer's eye towards an approaching wave that threatens to engulf the raft, while the second, composed of reaching figures, leads to the distant silhouette of the Argus, the ship that eventually rescued the survivors. The work's lighting has been described as "Caravaggesque", From the distant area of the rescue ship, a bright light shines, providing illumination to an otherwise dull brown scene.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏はどのように説明を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

メデューズ号の筏

The Raft of the Medusa portrays the moment when, after 13 days adrift on the raft, the remaining 15 survivors view a ship approaching from a distance. According to an early British reviewer, the work is set at a moment when "the ruin of the raft may be said to be complete". and those in the foreground almost twice life-size, pushed close to the picture plane and crowding onto the viewer, who is drawn into the physical action as a participant. stands on an empty barrel and frantically waves his handkerchief to draw the ship's attention.The pictorial composition of the painting is constructed upon two pyramidal structures. The perimeter of the large mast on the left of the canvas forms the first. The horizontal grouping of dead and dying figures in the foreground forms the base from which the survivors emerge, surging upward towards the emotional peak, where the central figure waves desperately at a rescue ship.The viewer's attention is first drawn to the centre of the canvas, then follows the directional flow of the survivors' bodies, viewed from behind and straining to the right. Two other diagonal lines are used to heighten the dramatic tension. One follows the mast and its rigging and leads the viewer's eye towards an approaching wave that threatens to engulf the raft, while the second, composed of reaching figures, leads to the distant silhouette of the Argus, the ship that eventually rescued the survivors. The work's lighting has been described as "Caravaggesque", From the distant area of the rescue ship, a bright light shines, providing illumination to an otherwise dull brown scene.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏に関して、どのように説明が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。


section

メデューズ号の筏

The Raft of the Medusa fuses many influences from the Old Masters, from the st Judgment and Sistine Chapel ceiling of Michelangelo  and Raphael's Transfiguration, to the monumental approach of Jacques-Louis David  and Antoine-Jean Gros , to contemporary events.  By the 18th century, shipwrecks had become a recognised feature of marine art, as well as an increasingly common occurrence as more journeys were made by sea. Claude Joseph Vernet  created many such images, achieving naturalistic colour through direct observation—unlike other artists at that time—and was said to have tied himself to the mast of a ship in order to witness a storm.Although the men depicted on the raft had spent 13 days adrift and suffered hunger, disease and cannibalism, Géricault pays tribute to the traditions of heroic painting and presents his figures as muscular and healthy. According to the art historian Richard Muther, there is still a strong debt to Classicism in the work. The fact that the majority of the figures are almost naked, he wrote, arose from a desire to avoid "unpictorial" costumes. Muther observes that there is "still something academic in the figures, which do not seem to be sufficiently weakened by privation, disease, and the struggle with death". In 1793, David also painted an important current event with The Death of Marat. His painting had an enormous political impact during the time of the revolution in France, and it served as an important precedent for Géricault's decision to also paint a current event. David's pupil, Antoine-Jean Gros, had, like David, represented "the grandiosities of a school irredeemably associated with a lost cause", but in some major works, he had given equal prominence to Napoleon and anonymous dead or dying figures. Géricault had been particularly impressed by the 1804 painting Bonaparte Visiting the Plague-Victims of Jaffa, by Gros.The foreground figure of the older man may be a reference to Ugolino from Dante's Inferno—a subject that Géricault had contemplated painting—and seems to borrow from a painting of Ugolini by Henry Fuseli  that Géricault may have known from prints. In Dante, Ugolino is guilty of cannibalism, which was one of the most sensational aspects of the days on the raft. Géricault seems to allude to this through the borrowing from Fuseli. An early study for The Raft of the Medusa in watercolour, now in the Louvre, is much more explicit, depicting a figure gnawing on the arm of a headless corpse.Several English and American paintings including The Death of Major Pierson by John Singleton Copley —also painted within two years of the event—had established a precedent for a contemporary subject. Copley had also painted several large and heroic depictions of disasters at sea which Géricault may have known from prints: Watson and the Shark , in which a black man is central to the action, and which, like The Raft of the Medusa, concentrated on the actors of the drama rather than the seascape; The Defeat of the Floating Batteries at Gibraltar, September 1782 , which was an influence on both the style and subject matter of Géricault's work; and Scene of a Shipwreck , which has a strikingly similar composition. A further important precedent for the political component was the works of Francisco Goya, particularly his The Disasters of War series of 1810–12, and his 1814 masterpiece The Third of May 1808. Goya also produced a painting of a disaster at sea, called simply Shipwreck , but although the sentiment is similar, the composition and style have nothing in common with The Raft of the Medusa. It is unlikely that Géricault had seen the picture.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏に焦点を当てて、その影響を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Antoine-Jean Gros
Classicism
Francisco Goya
Henry Fuseli
Jacques-Louis David
John Singleton Copley
Louvre


section

メデューズ号の筏

The Raft of the Medusa fuses many influences from the Old Masters, from the st Judgment and Sistine Chapel ceiling of Michelangelo  and Raphael's Transfiguration, to the monumental approach of Jacques-Louis David  and Antoine-Jean Gros , to contemporary events.  By the 18th century, shipwrecks had become a recognised feature of marine art, as well as an increasingly common occurrence as more journeys were made by sea. Claude Joseph Vernet  created many such images, achieving naturalistic colour through direct observation—unlike other artists at that time—and was said to have tied himself to the mast of a ship in order to witness a storm.Although the men depicted on the raft had spent 13 days adrift and suffered hunger, disease and cannibalism, Géricault pays tribute to the traditions of heroic painting and presents his figures as muscular and healthy. According to the art historian Richard Muther, there is still a strong debt to Classicism in the work. The fact that the majority of the figures are almost naked, he wrote, arose from a desire to avoid "unpictorial" costumes. Muther observes that there is "still something academic in the figures, which do not seem to be sufficiently weakened by privation, disease, and the struggle with death". In 1793, David also painted an important current event with The Death of Marat. His painting had an enormous political impact during the time of the revolution in France, and it served as an important precedent for Géricault's decision to also paint a current event. David's pupil, Antoine-Jean Gros, had, like David, represented "the grandiosities of a school irredeemably associated with a lost cause", but in some major works, he had given equal prominence to Napoleon and anonymous dead or dying figures. Géricault had been particularly impressed by the 1804 painting Bonaparte Visiting the Plague-Victims of Jaffa, by Gros.The foreground figure of the older man may be a reference to Ugolino from Dante's Inferno—a subject that Géricault had contemplated painting—and seems to borrow from a painting of Ugolini by Henry Fuseli  that Géricault may have known from prints. In Dante, Ugolino is guilty of cannibalism, which was one of the most sensational aspects of the days on the raft. Géricault seems to allude to this through the borrowing from Fuseli. An early study for The Raft of the Medusa in watercolour, now in the Louvre, is much more explicit, depicting a figure gnawing on the arm of a headless corpse.Several English and American paintings including The Death of Major Pierson by John Singleton Copley —also painted within two years of the event—had established a precedent for a contemporary subject. Copley had also painted several large and heroic depictions of disasters at sea which Géricault may have known from prints: Watson and the Shark , in which a black man is central to the action, and which, like The Raft of the Medusa, concentrated on the actors of the drama rather than the seascape; The Defeat of the Floating Batteries at Gibraltar, September 1782 , which was an influence on both the style and subject matter of Géricault's work; and Scene of a Shipwreck , which has a strikingly similar composition. A further important precedent for the political component was the works of Francisco Goya, particularly his The Disasters of War series of 1810–12, and his 1814 masterpiece The Third of May 1808. Goya also produced a painting of a disaster at sea, called simply Shipwreck , but although the sentiment is similar, the composition and style have nothing in common with The Raft of the Medusa. It is unlikely that Géricault had seen the picture.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏の影響を説明してください。英語で出力して下さい。

Antoine-Jean Gros
Classicism
Francisco Goya
Henry Fuseli
Jacques-Louis David
John Singleton Copley
Louvre


section

メデューズ号の筏

The Raft of the Medusa fuses many influences from the Old Masters, from the st Judgment and Sistine Chapel ceiling of Michelangelo  and Raphael's Transfiguration, to the monumental approach of Jacques-Louis David  and Antoine-Jean Gros , to contemporary events.  By the 18th century, shipwrecks had become a recognised feature of marine art, as well as an increasingly common occurrence as more journeys were made by sea. Claude Joseph Vernet  created many such images, achieving naturalistic colour through direct observation—unlike other artists at that time—and was said to have tied himself to the mast of a ship in order to witness a storm.Although the men depicted on the raft had spent 13 days adrift and suffered hunger, disease and cannibalism, Géricault pays tribute to the traditions of heroic painting and presents his figures as muscular and healthy. According to the art historian Richard Muther, there is still a strong debt to Classicism in the work. The fact that the majority of the figures are almost naked, he wrote, arose from a desire to avoid "unpictorial" costumes. Muther observes that there is "still something academic in the figures, which do not seem to be sufficiently weakened by privation, disease, and the struggle with death". In 1793, David also painted an important current event with The Death of Marat. His painting had an enormous political impact during the time of the revolution in France, and it served as an important precedent for Géricault's decision to also paint a current event. David's pupil, Antoine-Jean Gros, had, like David, represented "the grandiosities of a school irredeemably associated with a lost cause", but in some major works, he had given equal prominence to Napoleon and anonymous dead or dying figures. Géricault had been particularly impressed by the 1804 painting Bonaparte Visiting the Plague-Victims of Jaffa, by Gros.The foreground figure of the older man may be a reference to Ugolino from Dante's Inferno—a subject that Géricault had contemplated painting—and seems to borrow from a painting of Ugolini by Henry Fuseli  that Géricault may have known from prints. In Dante, Ugolino is guilty of cannibalism, which was one of the most sensational aspects of the days on the raft. Géricault seems to allude to this through the borrowing from Fuseli. An early study for The Raft of the Medusa in watercolour, now in the Louvre, is much more explicit, depicting a figure gnawing on the arm of a headless corpse.Several English and American paintings including The Death of Major Pierson by John Singleton Copley —also painted within two years of the event—had established a precedent for a contemporary subject. Copley had also painted several large and heroic depictions of disasters at sea which Géricault may have known from prints: Watson and the Shark , in which a black man is central to the action, and which, like The Raft of the Medusa, concentrated on the actors of the drama rather than the seascape; The Defeat of the Floating Batteries at Gibraltar, September 1782 , which was an influence on both the style and subject matter of Géricault's work; and Scene of a Shipwreck , which has a strikingly similar composition. A further important precedent for the political component was the works of Francisco Goya, particularly his The Disasters of War series of 1810–12, and his 1814 masterpiece The Third of May 1808. Goya also produced a painting of a disaster at sea, called simply Shipwreck , but although the sentiment is similar, the composition and style have nothing in common with The Raft of the Medusa. It is unlikely that Géricault had seen the picture.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏はどのように影響を説明していますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Antoine-Jean Gros
Classicism
Francisco Goya
Henry Fuseli
Jacques-Louis David
John Singleton Copley
Louvre


section

メデューズ号の筏

The Raft of the Medusa fuses many influences from the Old Masters, from the st Judgment and Sistine Chapel ceiling of Michelangelo  and Raphael's Transfiguration, to the monumental approach of Jacques-Louis David  and Antoine-Jean Gros , to contemporary events.  By the 18th century, shipwrecks had become a recognised feature of marine art, as well as an increasingly common occurrence as more journeys were made by sea. Claude Joseph Vernet  created many such images, achieving naturalistic colour through direct observation—unlike other artists at that time—and was said to have tied himself to the mast of a ship in order to witness a storm.Although the men depicted on the raft had spent 13 days adrift and suffered hunger, disease and cannibalism, Géricault pays tribute to the traditions of heroic painting and presents his figures as muscular and healthy. According to the art historian Richard Muther, there is still a strong debt to Classicism in the work. The fact that the majority of the figures are almost naked, he wrote, arose from a desire to avoid "unpictorial" costumes. Muther observes that there is "still something academic in the figures, which do not seem to be sufficiently weakened by privation, disease, and the struggle with death". In 1793, David also painted an important current event with The Death of Marat. His painting had an enormous political impact during the time of the revolution in France, and it served as an important precedent for Géricault's decision to also paint a current event. David's pupil, Antoine-Jean Gros, had, like David, represented "the grandiosities of a school irredeemably associated with a lost cause", but in some major works, he had given equal prominence to Napoleon and anonymous dead or dying figures. Géricault had been particularly impressed by the 1804 painting Bonaparte Visiting the Plague-Victims of Jaffa, by Gros.The foreground figure of the older man may be a reference to Ugolino from Dante's Inferno—a subject that Géricault had contemplated painting—and seems to borrow from a painting of Ugolini by Henry Fuseli  that Géricault may have known from prints. In Dante, Ugolino is guilty of cannibalism, which was one of the most sensational aspects of the days on the raft. Géricault seems to allude to this through the borrowing from Fuseli. An early study for The Raft of the Medusa in watercolour, now in the Louvre, is much more explicit, depicting a figure gnawing on the arm of a headless corpse.Several English and American paintings including The Death of Major Pierson by John Singleton Copley —also painted within two years of the event—had established a precedent for a contemporary subject. Copley had also painted several large and heroic depictions of disasters at sea which Géricault may have known from prints: Watson and the Shark , in which a black man is central to the action, and which, like The Raft of the Medusa, concentrated on the actors of the drama rather than the seascape; The Defeat of the Floating Batteries at Gibraltar, September 1782 , which was an influence on both the style and subject matter of Géricault's work; and Scene of a Shipwreck , which has a strikingly similar composition. A further important precedent for the political component was the works of Francisco Goya, particularly his The Disasters of War series of 1810–12, and his 1814 masterpiece The Third of May 1808. Goya also produced a painting of a disaster at sea, called simply Shipwreck , but although the sentiment is similar, the composition and style have nothing in common with The Raft of the Medusa. It is unlikely that Géricault had seen the picture.

Prompt: メデューズ号の筏に関して、どのように影響が議論されていますか？英語で出力して下さい。

Antoine-Jean Gros
Classicism
Francisco Goya
Henry Fuseli
Jacques-Louis David
John Singleton Copley
Louvre