Watson and the Shark
John Singleton Copely was born in Boston in 1738. Copely, who was trained in visual arts, was first influenced by English Mexxotint portraits. He went to London to develop his artistic talent and later spent a year in Italy studying various artistic styles before returning to London once again. It was there were he became greatly influenced by Benjamin West, who encouraged young painters to study the art of antiquity. Although he was at first reknowned for his talent in portraits, he later accquired a talent for historical paintings. He had a knack for giving a visual to the climax of a certain event, thus leaving his viewers in suspense because they are unsure of what the resolution will be. That is the feeling that is bestowed upon the veiwers of Copelys' Watson and the Shark.
In the 1600's to about the 1800's the experts and critics said to the artists that in order for them to prove themselves as a painter to the world they would have to paint a historical painting which was considered the greatest achievment. They were considered the greatest achievment becuase historical paintings were usually big and that way if any error occurs it would be magnified for the world to see. Historical paintings were a good way to tell society the truth about a historical event or given morals. They always have a message; a theme to show the world. When a historical painter creates a painting he chooses a particular moment in a certain event that he thinks is the most important moment in that historical even. They paint that particular moment according to what they know, learn, and hear about it thus making historical paintings not very accurate even though most of the historical facts are in presence. If a historical painting isnt interpreted the right way then it isnt a success.
Watson and the Shark is a painting meant to recreate an event that took place in Havana, Cuba in 1749. It all began when Brook Watson, a four-teen year old orphan serving as a crew member in a trading ship, went for a swim naked at sea. During his moment of leisure, Watson is attacked by a shark. This painting shows the moment where the shark is going after Watson, for what appears to be the second time, while his shipmates are attempting to rescue him. In the painting there is a black man who has thrown a rope at Watson, hoping to save him, but unfortunately the rope is out of Watsons grasp. Another crew member is holding onto the shirt of two additional members as they extend there arms out of the boat to a shocked Watson. Another shipmate is standing at the edge of the boat with what appears to be spear, and hes about to strike the hungry shark.
During this particular time period, black people were not considered smart and yet the black man in this painting has a smart and standing out role. Copely might have decided to add a black man in order to represnt the black race that was joining Britain. This painting is not only recreating a horrific event, but is also making a political statement. It was meant to show that when a man (British) is in danger against a shark (american colonies) then all the people (British) should unite and help fight against the shark because once the shark gets a little then eventually it will come back for more until theres nothing left to take. This painting could be trying to show that Britain has only a few seconds to react before the shark gets them.
The shark in the painting is drawn in a very unrealistic way, that it might as well be put in a cartoon! It appears to have to different kinds of teeth and has the added quality of lips to which all real sharks lack. Its' eyes are similar to that of a cow and not an actual size. Its' length seems to be extraoridinary as we see how the tail rises above the waters surface, away from the sharks' head thus adding to the illusion that there might be another shark present. Another unusal quality in this unusual shark, is the hump on its' head. The most probable reason that this shark looks more like a mythical creature than a shark, is because Copely might have never seen an actual shark thus being forced to paint a creature based on the description of others.
Brook Watson is in a state of shock. He appears to be too shocked to actually be frightened. It's as though he's given up hope on being rescued and just wants his suffering to come to a halt. Although it seems that this is the sharks first attempt in killing Watson, a closer look tells us otherwise. The waves and Watsons' posture makes it hard for the veiwers to notice that the shark has already amputated Watsons' feet. Another aspect that adds to the difficulty of this preception is the lack of a blood bath being present. There are some traces of blood in Watsons' right leg and the sharks teeth, but not nearly enough to make the scene realistic.
The boat in this painting is unrealistically stable. It is overcrowded with moving passengers; the black man and the man with the spear are standing, and two other men have half their body overboard.The sea looks like a dangerous and disoredered place to be roaming about. One would think that with the presense of a shark, a boat would be more unstable and yet surprisngly the boat is as still as a mountain being pushed by a man!
Copely has painted this event in a way that leaves veiwers with the conclusion that Watson is a dead man despite the fact that the actual event resulted in the survival of Brook Watson. Copely does this in the way where he makes the distance between Watson and the shark much closer to what it actually was. In the painting the distance makes it seem that in a matter of seconds the shark would have gotten Watson no matter what. He has also put a safe distance between the two crew members that are extending their hand, and Watson so that it seemed that they would never reach him on time. The black man's attempt at the rescue also seems pointless becuase Watson doesn't even come close to having a firm grip on the rope. The other man standing also looks feeble for trying to get rid of a mighty shark with such a feeble spear. The remaining shipmates are simply staring in horror or holding on the oars and so all this leaves the veiwer with a feeling of doom rather than the relief(victorious) they would've felt had they known the ending result.
Copely uses triangulation in this painting and the way the people are set up in the boat is similar to the rolling of the waves. Triangulation is a technique were all the main elements (subjects) are shown in a form of a triangle. There can be many triangles inside the main triangle. It is a technique used in many historical paintings and this painting is no exception. This particular triangle starts with the guy holding the spear that is linked to the shark and continuses the line along Watsons body and then forming an angle from Watsons feet and back to the top of the spear.
After surviving this nightmare Brook Watson, 'suffered an amputation of the limb, a little below the knee and later recieved a perfect cure in about three months.' He later went to great lengths to talk about his experience. 'A detailed description of these horrific events was published in a London newspaper. The text, believed to have been penned by Brook Watson himself, describes the scene in excruciating detail.' He also went to Copely and paid to have him paint the scence.
I like this painting because its not what it seems. When i first saw it i thought that the man floating in the sea (Watson) was a gonner for sure, but after doing some extensive research i found out that Brook Watson actually survived! He was rescued after all! His crewmates attempts weren't as feeble as i thought at the beginning; they were heroic. I liked how the painting sort've outsmarted me in a way because i was so sure that Watson was beyond help. Another reason i liked it was because when i first saw it, it left me with a feeling of anticipation. Even though i was sure i knew what was going to happen, i found myself at the edge of my seat wanting proof that I was right. Another thing that intrigued me about this painting was how the artist managed to create a mood of intensity, aggitation and suspense for his veiwers. I think Copely did a very good job in drawing the figures. I espesially liked the way he drew Watsons' hands; he has such fine hands. I didn't really appriciate the message Copely was trying to send out in this painting. Yes, i do believe that it is important for people to stick together and to unite as one against the enemy, but i dont really understand how it fits into the story of Watson and the Shark. I understand the symbols but i feel as though it is too confusing for me to fully grasp the idea. I strongly believe that John Singleton Copely deserved the 'favorable reception' he recieved in London after exhibiting his painting, Watson and the Shark, in Royal Academy 1778.
The Face Behind the Smile
One of the greatest art icons in history is the Mona Lisa. It is considered to be one of the most famous paintings in history because of the genius behind its creation; Leonardo Da Vinci. The painting appears everywhere from postcards to TV adds. The Mona Lisa is a portrait of a woman – but of whom? Many stories have surfaced in response to that question. Out of all of them, the one that stands out the most is that the Mona Lisa is in fact the female version of Leonardo Da Vinci.
Leonardo Da Vinci was born in 1452 in the small village of Vinci near Florence Italy. He became a court artist and was fanatical with the idea of being an aristocrat. He was obsessed with his image, both physical and social. He was a Renaissance Man and thus knowledgeable in every aspect of science and art.
"Alas, Leonardo's interests were so broad, and he was so often compelled by new subjects, that he usually failed to finish what he started. In addition to being just about the smartest person ever, Leonardo is reported to have been a strikingly handsome man with great strength and a fine singing voice." (Mona Lisa Mania)
This quote just emphasizes on the kind of person Leonardo was. Apart from his good looks he also rarely finished what he starts because of his wide variety of interests.
He was homosexual and often enjoyed dressing in drag. Da Vinci was infatuated with riddles, enjoyed practical jokes and elaborate puzzles; he thrived in fooling people. When he died at the age of 67, he had only one painting with him – The Mona Lisa.
There are many other theories hypothesizing the true identity of the Mona Lisa. One is that she is the portrait of a young Florentine woman, La Giocconda, who was the wife of Francesco del Giocconda. Yet if that were truly the case, then why didn’t she ever collect her portrait. What significance could it have had on Leonardo that would make it one of his most prized possessions? It may be of some significance to observe the La Giocconda can be translated as a ‘playful woman’. So did such a person exist? Or was it just another one of Leonardo’s pranks. Another interesting thing to note is that Leonardo recorded all the records of model sittings; but nowhere can be found any records of the Mona Lisa model sitting.
The Mona Lisa isn’t the only painting that has questionable theories surrounding it’s true identity. In Dan Browns The Da Vinci Code, readers questioned the truth behind Leonardo’s The Last Supper. The novel proclaims that the person standing next to Jesus in the painting is not one of Jesus’ apostles but is in fact Mary Magdalene. Now one could simply dismiss this as writings of fiction, however if one where to take a close look at The Last Supper, one would be in awe to discover that the person next to Jesus does indeed look like a woman and has no features that suggest a man. The reason why this wasn’t really noticed by many before, is also explained in the novel.
"The eye sees what the mind wants to see. When a person looks at The Last Supper, he/she thinks that they’re looking at a historical moment where Jesus shared his last meal with his twelve apostles and so that is all they see." (Brown 198)
Fig.1 :The Last Super by Leonardo Da Vinci.
Rina de Firenze in her book the Mystery of the Mona Lisa states that Leonardo painted his mother Caterina in the portrait of the Mona Lisa. In Rina’s book she describes Caterina as having blue green eyes and yet anyone who has taken a close look at the Mona Lisa in the Louvre Museum or seen a picture of her like the one shown Fig. 2., will note that her eyes are hazel or brown. If the Mona Lisa is indeed a portrait of his mother, then why would Leonardo paint Caterina with the wrong eye color?
Fig. 2: Mona Lisa Eyes
The Mona Lisa is painted sitting, dressed in the fashion of her day in front of a mountainous landscape. The Mona Lisa's enigmatic expression, which seems both alluring and aloof, has given the portrait universal fame The painting is a wonderful example of Leonardo's sfumato technique of soft, heavy shading. He used his finger to erase outlines and create an impression of fuzziness. She was painted in a lounge with a fantasy background; gloomy and mysterious. If a person were to look at the picture (Fig. 3.) carefully, he/she would see that the two sides of the background do not quite match. The horizon on the left side seems much lower than the one on the right. The result makes the Mona Lisa seem taller on the left side than when she is seen from the right side. Leonardo Da Vinci created two horizons instead of one so that it portrayed an image of movement in her mouth and added to the effect of an illusion. Things aren’t always what they seem. Two horizons aren’t a part of reality. There’s no such thing and so what was Da Vinci trying to say? Curiously the Mona Lisa appears not to have eyebrows either, although they may have been rubbed off by a vigorous cleaning. A cryptic clue might have been left by Leonardo himself in an entry in his notebook.
Fig. 3: The Mona Lisa By Leonardo Da Vinci
"Look about you and take the best parts of many beautiful faces, of which the beauty is confirmed rather by public fame than by your own judgments; for you might be mistaken and choose faces which have some resemblances to your own. For it would seem that such resemblances often please us; and if you should be ugly, you would select faces that were no beautiful and you would make them ugly faces as many painters do. For often a master's shapes resemble himself. "(Vinci 137)
Fig. 4: Mona Lisa hands
Another interesting thing to note on the Mona Lisa’s' lack of eye brows is that it was considered a fashion for gay men at the time not to have eye brows. An additional confusing factor to the Mona Lisa’s’ characteristics is her hands. As seen in Fig. 4., they are unusually large for a woman. Her hands are big, fat and bulky; not fitting with the elegance and softness of her face. She has what appears to be manly hands. Perhaps the most famous aspect of the Mona Lisa is the smile, a smile that seems to suggest a secret. The smile has a slight lifting at the left end as if it were just a half smile.
A 16th century manual for women advised, "Close from time to time the right corner of the mouth, with a sweet and lively movement, and open the left corner, as in a secret smile."(Silvestri)
Could Leonardo’s' secret be that he is the person behind that smile?
Fig. 5: Self Portrait of Leonardo Da Vinci
Leonardo Da Vinci did a self portrait of himself at an old age (Fig. 5.). It is the only self portrait of Leonardo that we know of. Aside from the usual brilliance we derive from his works of art, this painting lacks intrigue but a closer, more observant look proves otherwise. If you were to take a copy of that painting and reverse it (instead of looking right, Da Vinci would be looking left) and put it over a copy of the Mona Lisas' painting, you would be fascinated to discover that the two paintings are nearly perfectly aligned. The eyes, start of the forehead and the mouth among other things all line up together. The alignment is too precise to be coincidental. Proportions of the face are nearly similar for everyone but the features of their faces are too unique to be duplicated. Leonardo's self portrait is the main element to the theory that Leonardo Da Vinci and the Mona Lisa are the same person. The Mona Lisa is Leonardo Da Vinci; a female version of him, or how he saw himself to be (his inner self).
Dr. Lillian Shwartz, a computer graphics pioneer used computer technology available at Bell Labs to juxtapose the portrait of Leonardo with that of the Mona Lisa. When the images were superimposed, the facial features aligned perfectly. (Shwartz)
Fig. 6: Half of Mona Lisa and Half of Leonardo Da Vinci Self Portrait
In Dan Brown’s popular novel The Da Vinci Code, Brown’s protagonist, Harvard professor Robert Langdon, claims that the painting expresses Leonardo’s belief in the “sacred feminine” and that the title “is a coded reference to the Egyptian Gods Amon and Isis. ‘Mona’ being an anagram of the former ‘Lisa’ being a contraction of l'Isa, meaning Isis. This is supposed to indicate Da Vinci’s secret antagonism towards Orthodox Christianity and his belief in the ideal union of masculine and feminine principles, as does the sitter's androgynous features. In this context he also refers to the self-portrait theory. (Brown 232)
The Mona Lisa was the only painting that Da Vinci never sold, showed or displayed to anyone. He worked on it during a huge portion of his life. Because procrastination was a part of Da Vincis' nature; it is possible to conclude that the painting was 'completed' sometime between 1503 and 1513. The panel itself is unsigned and undated and there is no record of any commission or payments and Leonardo makes no mention of it in his notebooks, where he recorded everything else. His notes show that he had a variety of interests such as painting, architecture, the elements of mechanics and human anatomy. If the Mona Lisa is a portrait, the sitter could not have been with Leonardo when he started, worked on and 'finished' the painting unless of course it was someone close to the artist. Seeing that Leonardo Da Vinci is a homosexual it is highly unlikely that he would have had a woman companion for that long. Being a homosexual doesn’t necessarily mean that one does not socialize with people of the opposite sex. Leonardo however is known to have had his homosexual companions as his only long time friends. There is no mention of any woman that was construed as a long time companion of the artist in any of his notebooks. It is not impossible to conceive that the Mona Lisa is actually a man when you consider that at this time, homosexual men adopted a feminine look:
"…not only [do they] curl their hair and pick their brows, but also pamper themselves in every point like the most wanton and dishonest women in the world." (Lockwood)
Many thought the artist to be beautiful, including Leonardo himself. He thinks he was at his peak during his mid age – the age the Mona Lisa appears to be. This could explain the smile on the Mona Lisa and how it's the artists’ way of saying that he fooled us all with this painting. Perhaps another clue is located in the design of the lace on the bodice of the sitter. If examined closely, the lace turns out to be a knot design and while the use of the knot design was common at the time, this particular design was created by Leonardo as a symbol he uses to associate with himself. It is considered to be the artists signature. He already has his named signed on the painting so it is not a matter of who painted the painting, but rather why add another ‘signature’ that not everyone can see, when one is already apparent.
Leonardo was a genius; a true Renaissance Man. He was also very fond of practical jokes and was known for partaking in them. Isn't it possible that what most consider to be an art icon, is really nothing but con act? People hate to be fooled and accepting this theory means that everyone that has admired the Mona Lisa and claimed to know its mystery is a fool. Is it hard to accept that even geniuses have a sense of humor – even if it is a twisted one? Aside from his trickster behavior, let’s not forget the fact that Leonardo was indeed a homosexual. He loved and sought after men and so it can be derived that he might have wanted to be a woman or see himself as one. The Mona Lisa was painted for Leonardo by Leonardo. He never showed it to anyone and kept it in his possession his whole life. That alone shows that the painting is very dear to him and must hold something of sentimental value. When he died, he left the Mona Lisa, along with his notebooks, to the King of France.
Iraq
I was watching the History channel with my father the other day. We were watching a documentary about Iraq. It was about early Iraq from the Babylonian times up until Sadam Hussein. I don't think any area of the world has been devastated with as much instability as Iraq. Coup after coup, assassination after assassination and betrayal after betrayal. The other day I heard that the actual name of the country used to be العراك, but it was changed to العراق.
- King Faisal I ruled from 1921-1933. The British created the monarchy of Iraq which was led by King Faisal I, while the British maintained the mandate. Iraq became fully independent in 1932. His contribution was important. (Direct desendant of the Prophet Mohammed PBUH, and his family were the Sharifs of Mecca until 1924).
-King Ghazi succeeded his father in 1933 after he died of a heart attack. He supported Bakr Sidqi (an Iraqi general) in his coup and turned the government from a civilian government to a military one. He died from a sports car accident. It is rumored that he was killed under the orders of Nuri Al Said (a prominent Iraqi politician at the time who strongly favoured the British mandate).
-King Faisal II succeeded his father in 1939 and lasted until 1958. He was the last King of Iraq and this is where it gets messy. His cousin King Hussein of Jordan asked him for military assistance. Abdulkarim Qassim a military officer at the time used the troop movements as a means to stage a coup. King Faisal and his assistant uncle surrendered but they were killed by an army officer.
-Abdulkarim Qassim took over Baghdad and created the republic of Iraq. He declared himself prime minister. He lasted until 1963 due to his assassination resulting from a Baathist coup supported by pan-Arab elements from Egypt.
-Ahmad Hasan Al Bakr became the next prime minister. He was a leading member of the Baath party. He was PM for only 10 months, when he left his position in 1963 as well due to a counter coup led by Abdulrahman Arif. He stayed as vice president until he was removed in 1964. Al Bakr orchestrated an internal coup yet again and managed to exile Arif. He was installed as the fourth president from 1968-1979.
-In 1979 Al Bakr stepped down claiming ill-health and Saddam Hussein succeeded him. His supicious death in 1982 was said to have been organized by Saddam.
The rest is history I'd say. There's the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted around ten years then there's the poor invasion of Kuwait, and there's now, American involvement in Iraq. A big controversy of a country.
Reading into it, I'd say Saddam wasn't so bad, he really resembled his predecessors but he did probably go overboard.
Judith Slaying Holofernes
One of my favorite paintings of all time is ‘Judith Slaying Holofernes’ by Artemisia Gentileschi. During the early Baroque era, male artists dominated the scene and so most female artists were limited to portrait painting and basically imitative poses. Artemesia was the first female artist to go further and paint major historical and religious scenes.
The famous biblical story of Judith and General Holofernes has been portrayed in many historical painting by artists such as Caravaggio, Donatello, and Sandro Botticelli to name a few. The town of Bethulia was besieged by the army of the Assyrian General Holofernes and so one night Judith (a Jewish widow) enters the General's tent leaving him stunned with her beauty. To impress Judith the General orders a feast with plenty of wine, he eventually passes out from all the wine consumption. With the help of her maid Abra, Judith decapitates General Holofernes using his very own sword.
“A whole book in the Catholic Bible is devoted to Judith, because as a woman she embodies the power of the people of Israel to defeat the enemy, though superior in numbers, by means of cunning and courage”
So what makes Artimesia’s painting any different from all the other great artists since the story is the same??
Artemisia Gentileschi (1593 – 1652/1653) was the daughter of a well known Roman artist, Orazio Gentileschi and so her early training came from her father. Later on she continued to study under Agostino Tassi (her father’s friend).
Agostino Tassi raped Artemisia.
In 1612, her father brought suit against Tassi for raping Artemisia. There followed a highly publicised seven-month trial where eventually Tassi was imprisoned for a year.
“In the ensuing 7-month trial, it was discovered that Tassi had planned to murder his wife, had committed incest with his sister-in-law and planned to steal some of Orazio’s paintings. During the trial Artemisia was given a gynecological examination and was tortured using a device made of thongs wrapped around the fingers and tightened by degrees — a particularly cruel torture to a painter. Both procedures were used to corroborate the truth of her allegation, the torture device used due to the belief that if a person can tell the same story under torture as without it, the story must be true.”
The trauma of the rape and trial was clearly evident in Artemisia's painting for in all the previous versions of the biblical story Judith was very stoic and emotionless whereas in Artemisia’s painting connotations of anger, rage, and violence are clearly conveyed on Judith's face.
“Her graphic depictions were cathartic and symbolic attempts to deal with the physical and psychic pain."
