"The Destruction of the Palace of Armida" is a painting created by french artist Charles-Antoine Coypel in the early 1700s. The focus of the piece is on the angel creature coming down. The light source appears to be in the back. However, most of the people in the piece are lit from the front, implying an additional source in the front, which I found interesting in addition to all of the chaos.
This one is called "A Coastal Landscape with Sailing Ships by Moonlight" by Andreas Achenbach. The moonlight is the clear source of light here. It is contrast with the dark, ominous clouds, which gives either the feeling that danger is always there, or that there is hope amongst the darkness and despair.
The first painting uses light in a very different way. It is very busy but light brings out the main focus nicely. There are some discrepancies in the lighting of the angels, as you pointed out. This may just be the artist moving the focus and not an additional light source.
ReplyDeleteI love the light on the water in the second painting. I think it is such a great way to add extra light with the single light source depicted.
I really like the second painting. I agree with you with the fact one can interpret the mood of the painting in either or dark or light way. Initially the moonlight and shadows caste by the boat invoked more negative emotions like the scene of a wreck. However, the moonlight and light blue sky can also portray a very hopeful mood as well.
ReplyDeleteThe brightness of the lighting in the first painting gives a majestic and powerful image of the angel creature coming from above. I like how the darkness at the bottom of the contrasts with the top, giving the light a greater effect. In the second painting, it is dim, yet the soft light from the moon is calming.The slight lightness of the clouds from the moonlight give a more peaceful feeling to the painting, rather than only having dark clouds.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom painting is very interesting. You can kind of tell that the painter cheated a bit, lightening the clouds in a way that the sun, in its current position, couldn't possibly do. But the brightness of the sun, along with its yellow glow, does indeed provide a beacon of hope in a graying atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteIn the top painting, it's interesting seeing how the angels on the left side are less lit than the ones on the right. I feel like this helps show a kind of "bad vs good" theme. It is also funny noticing how there is light coming from the front but the source of light actually seen in the painting is coming from behind the angel in the center. For the second painting, I would describe it as more hopeful than dangerous just because there aren't many extremely dark shadows.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom painting and its approach to lighting is quite nice. I like the way that the clouds obfuscate the sun, which then in turn limits the lighting. The lighting in this painting is able to show what is going on with ocean, which the water appears to be relatively calm. I think all of the aspects add to the ominous feeling that this painting presents.
ReplyDeleteThe first painting is really cool because it represents light as a tool of destruction instead of just a lighting source. Lighting with multiple meanings is used throughout these pieces and it makes them really interesting.
ReplyDeleteI really like your first image because of the necessary light you mention that comes from the viewers perspective. If the light behind the angel was really the only light in the painting then all of the other parts of the picture would look very distorted or unrecognizable.
ReplyDelete