ARA Boston Art History Lecture: Caravaggio

Garrett Vitanza takes on a lovely ride through an incredible amount of information about Caravaggio, his story, and and his painting process and how it relates to what we do here at the atelier.

[@annemareehealey8182]

So enjoying these lectures! Thank you for teaching me to appreciate these masters.

[@Lena-Kim]

It's wonderful! A rare case of such a detailed composition analysis. Thank you very much !!

[@Chaotic313]

I am loving these lectures so much!! Thank you!

[@Thankful2bCatholic]

thank you SO MUCH for this!!! This is SO interesting!!!! We have Caravaggio's works in Malta too: st.John's Co-Cathedral!!! :)

[@vincentweber921]

I really like the portrait of the speaker in the background

[@Maxfox11]

[@jokefrima4049]

I did like the lecture a lot!

[@esmatmastrok5026]

Excellent! Thank you!

[@doctorwho4475]

Wow!

[@retromograph3893]

No mention of David Hockney?!

[@agaluch]

It would have been better to only have the projection after the lecturer's introduction. He adds little to the subject beyond his voice while the projection is everything. This may have been technically easier to implement as well.

[@jokefrima4049]

What a strange way of using the word pentimento,,, ? According to my understanding this word has a different meaning. A pentimento is an alteration to a painting, created during the painting of the original work. Pentimenti are invisible to the naked eye in the finished painting, but may later become visible through chemical changes of the paint or through certain modern technical examinations. Pentimento in Italian is repentance.

[@firstnamelastname5751]

I believe he meant imprimatura

[@jokefrima4049]

Ok, that makes sense, I was really puzzled……

[@isaacmolefenyokong7776]

​@@firstnamelastname5751lol and that's what happens when they come and exercise without restraint and contemplation their proud self important, supposed ownership of knowledge about art in general. 😊

[@FRguillaume.L]

Interesting thank you, but I don't understand why there is 0 mention of Caravaggio using lens/camera obscura to work, this is very important to understand why he rendered things like this and also how he achieved so much "naturalistic and dramatic" light.

[@israeldiegoriveragenius2th164]

Because it is unsubstantiated nonsense.

[@FRguillaume.L]

@@israeldiegoriveragenius2th164 Please elaborate, I don't see why, all the arguments about the light effect to the absence of drawing does corroborate this ?

[@israeldiegoriveragenius2th164]

Hockney's programme has been thoroughly debunked, in which he has backed down on every claim. The camera obscura is useless, technology makes bad paintings, because it does not understand form and drawing. I have seen your channel, so it will be impossible to explain to you. 1 lack of texts 2 we have evidence of working methods, 3 no electric light 4 low quality lenses 5 low quality mirrors, 6 camera obscura was reliant on the sun, produced a tiny image which was upside down, the room was pitch black so you could only trace and outline, Caravaggio's paintings are larger than life size, have turning figures and horses, impossible to paint in a pitch black room. Fine art is based on drawing , photograph copy painting has no drawing no understanding of form. Caravaggio's paintings are not photos, they are extremely complex and subtle, highly influenced by sculpture and Renaissance art. There is no evidence to back up your claim.@@FRguillaume.L

[@israeldiegoriveragenius2th164]

The light in Caravaggio came from a high window in his studio, you can see the window reflected in his paintings, a high window cannot work with a camera obscura. We can sometimes see Caravaggio's studio reflected in his painting, again no camera obscura, lots of studio scenes in paintings for hundreds of years, no camera obscura, stop watching rubbish tv programmes.

[@israeldiegoriveragenius2th164]

Look up David G. Stork Author @@FRguillaume.L

[@renzo6490]

Cara- VAH-Joe ( the i is silent )