Cartier Mystery Clocks

I got to see Cartier and America at the Legion of Honor (again).

The most interesting objects there (in my opinion) were the Cartier "mystery clocks." You cannot tell very well from the picture, but everything around the hands is crystal - invisible crystal. This astounded me when I first saw it. I took a closer look, "Yup; it's clear." I really had no clue how it works. Apparently they had it written somewhere in the exhibition. That surprised me; I thought it was some long-kept secret technology. I guess not. The way it works is that the center part (the rock crystal) is cut in half, and the middle part is taken out, just enough to make room for two discs, about the size of the hands. These discs are what hold the hands. They also connect the hands to the base of the clock (or where ever the clock mechanism is).

Apart from having the "invisible" clock mechanism, these clocks have some other attributes. How about the gold and diamond patterns that form the frame? Do you like a clock worth over $1,000,000? Well, who wouldn't?

Antiques - Violano Virtuoso

OK... So you might be thinking, "Antiques? How is that art? That's just old stuff..."

Nope. I mean, some antique stores are filled with useless old stuff that a granny turned in for some cash, but some antique stores are really something special.

We came across one of these good stores in Solvang. It was a huge store with all different kinds of things. They had a See's Candies scale, several pianos, a foot organ (you have to push two pedals for sound), lots of older kinds of music boxes, and various small collectibles.

But the object that fascinated me the most was something called a Violano Virtuoso. It's basically a piano and a violin that play themselves put together in one box. True, it doesn't sound too impressive considering all of the advances we've made in recording/listening to music in the past several decades. If you consider that this was made in the 1920's and that it still works, it's pretty cool. Of course, it can't play very many pieces, and it might be just a "little bit" bigger than a CD player (it's "only" about 6 feet tall).

This is a picture of part of a Violano Virtuoso.

It must have been a very creative person that came up with this idea. And how talented the people who made it were. It took them 13 years to finish the project, and it was well worth it.

Of course, these are no longer for practical uses; they have become a true collctible. Some estimate there to be about 700-800 left out of several thousand.

Jean as a Huntsman by Pierre-Auguste Renoir

I had the great fortune of seeing an exhibition of Renoir paintings at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art this week. Out of the paintings there, this was one of my favorites.

The painting, completed in 1910, is of the artist's son, Jean. He was asked about the painting and remembers having to pose for it.

"When I was fifteen years old, I wore a jacket that reminded my father of a hunter, so he had me pose with a gun and with Bob for a hunting dog. The gun was borrowed from one of our farmers."

-Jean Renoir

What I really like about this painting is the fact that you can see the strokes of the paintbrush, but it's not huge strokes that make the whole picture blurry. They don't force you to have to step away from it in order to see the subject.

One of the things you see in many of Renoir's paintings in the background. It's there, and you know the subject is not floating in space, but it is done in a way that forces you to focus on the subject, not what's around it.

Renoir was an impressionist painter, even though later in his life he tried to separate himself from the impressionists. But even when you compare his painting to those of other impressionists, you can clearly see the difference; you don't even have to be very familiar with his art in order to be able to tell if it's Renoir or not. He paints in a way that you can really tell that it's a painting, not a photo. I admire the fact that some people can paint something that looks like a photo, but what's the point? That person didn't leave their mark, their style on it. Renoir found a perfect balance between accurateness and an artist's touch.

Van Gogh's Bedroom at Arles by Vincent Van Gogh

This painting is Van Gogh's Bedroom at Arles, by Vincent Van Gogh. This is one of the versions of this painting. There are three versions total.

I do not understand the point of painting the painting, almost identical, again. Possibly he couldn't find anything new to paint, so he recreated older pieces to earn some money.

There are very slight differences in the paintings - mostly color-wise. The color on the walls differs slightly in all three pictures. Another difference is the color of the table. The floor color also varies from painting to painting. I doubt Van Gogh repainted his room twice over the course of two years and redid the flooring. Why did he make these objects a different color? Did this make it easier to tell the paintings apart?

It's interesting how when you look at a painting closer, you find yourself asking a lot of questions...

Still Life with Musical Instruments by Pieter Claesz

This is Pieter Claesz's Still Life with Musical Instruments. It was painted in 1623 and is located in the Louvre. Before I get to talking about the picture, I have a few things to say about the author. He was born in Berchem, near Antwerp, in the Netherlands. He was a still life painter. None of his paintings portray people. And the guy really should have used some sort of "stage name." I can't even begin to guess the pronounciation of it.

Now, about the painting. In general, it's not bad. It looks very realistic, and that's a quality I admire a lot in paintings, since no matter what I draw, it's never realistic.

One of the things I like about it is that it stands out from the standard still life. Usually, it will contain flowers, fruits, maybe a pitcher of water or something. This is the first still life I have seen with violins and a turtle! I like the fact that the painter found something that would make his still life stand out from the crowd. The objects on the table are very interesting, when examined more closely. There's a compass, a book, several unidentifiable objects on a plate ( I can't call it food - looks inedible). There's also a mirror with the reflection of the glass of... something (wine?). Off to the left, there are some more strange objects in what looks like a gravy boat, as well as a metal object with a cord around it. I suppose the artist found everything that looks interesting that he had in his house, put it on the table, and drew it. Creative.

Princess Elizabeth

This painting is called Princess Elizabeth, second daughter of Charles I, at the ages of 3, 5, and 6. The painter is anonymous, it's not dated. This painting hangs in the Roy Miles Fine Paintings Museum, in London.

There are several things I find strange about this painting. One of the first is that the author is so secretive about it. It's OK to let people know you painted it. It's not all that bad.

Honestly, I don't get the point of doing the girl three times at different ages. I realize they probably didn't have cameras when the picture was drawn. Unless Charles I and his wife wanted their daughter holding hands with herself, this is a strange way of tracking the girl's growth. I would have done one portrait at age 3, another at age 5, and another at age 6.

The thing that really creeps me out is the fact that she's wearing the same dress and the same shoes, but different sizes. I wouldn't have wanted to get clothing of the same style, but a size bigger. If it was my choice, I would have gotten at elast a different colored dress.

On the other hand, there are slight differences in the outfits of hte girl. (I don't know if i should be plural or now: it's the same girl, but drawn three times.) The variable is the light yellow-green scarf. In the image on the left, it's tied around the girl's arm. In the second image - crossed on her chest, in the third - under each shoulder and in front.

Another difference is the necklace. They appear similar from far away, but when you look at them, they're different. They are aso wearing differet hair accessories - the small jeweled things in the middle in their hair are slightly different.

In this painting, the young child, despite being only three years old (five and six also), doesn't look like little kids usually do. I don't quite know what it is about her, but you can tell she's some sort of royalty.

She is much taller each year. Maybe the queen wanted to brag about her young daughter who is "growing up so quickly" to all her friends, and had her drawn at ages 3, 6, and 8. It certainly looks like it!

Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino's Vision of a Knight

This is Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino's Vision of a Knight, completed in 1504.

Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino, better known as Raphael, is considered to be one of the best artists of his time, along with Michaelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci.
This might be Raphael's "vision of a knight," but definitely not mine. Where's the shining armor? And the glorious white steed? And why is he asleep!!!???!!!???!!!???

Of course I understand that the shining armor might have been less popular then, but you could have come up with a more courageous-looking picture of a knight! At least standing up...

And what the heck is he using as a pillow? What is that red thing? Is that his saddle? If it is, where's the horse?

Also, his face is so pale I would have never guessed he had spent even an hour outside. They weren't supposed to have had sunscreen in the 16th century.

Another thing I find peculiar about this is the way the women are dressed. The guy, too, but let's call that his pajamas. The females' costumes seem to be normal until you get about halfway, no matter which side you're looking from - the top or the bottom. The cloth seems to drape in a strange way. The woman on the right also has some bead-like decoration on her dress.

On the other hand, I like the way the artist showed the mountains in the back, covered by fog. The castle seems mysterious and dramatic, too.

The Lute Player by August Macke

This painting is August Macke's The Lute Player, painted in 1910.

The one thing that I noticed right away about this that got my attention was the fact that most of the lute is covered by the vase. This surprises me, since the painting is called The Lute Player. I would expect that the lute and its player would be very visible rather than halfway covered by a vase of tulips.

One of the other things that captured my attention was the "X" in the top left part of the painting. Could that stand for somthing?

One of the things I really like about this painting are the bright, happy colors. I like a painting that makes you happy much more than a painting of some dark, depressing room full of dark, depressed people wearing dark, depressing clothing... I think you get the point.

Another thing is the facial expression of the player's face. He (or she) doesn't seem to be very immersed in the music. They seem to be a little mad about something. Not a very friendly expression, to say the least. Maybe they were forced into lute lessons as a kid.

La Carmencita by John Singer Sargent

This is John Singer Sargent's La Carmencita, painted in 1890.

Overall, I really like this painting. Actually, I only have two problems with this picture.

One of them is the fact that her face is really pale and she looks like she's tilting her head really far back compared to normal or something like that. I can't quite tell what it is that bugs me about her face, but there is something.

The other thing that I have noticed is her back arm. The way her arm and her shoulder are drawn, her shoulder seems like it's raised (once again, really far compared to normal). You can also see so little of the arm that you can't quite tell that's it's attached securely to her body. It looks like it started to grow a little sideways.

Other than that, I really like the painting.

When you look at her dress, the design on it is really beautiful. It's actually a very interesting dress. The skirt, aside from the poofiness, is more or less average. For the top part, it looks like it's a regular top with some sort of a shawl draped over it. Not necessarily the average dress you see people wear a lot now, but I like it.

Moonlight Sonata by Beethoven

As requested by readers of the blog, I will post about music, specifically, the Moonlight Sonata by Beethoven. Why? I wish I could tell you. It's just the first music piece that popped into my head.

And guess what? It wasn't even always called that. It used to be called *drumroll please...*

Piano Sonata No. 14. Exciting, huh?

Yeah, I didn't think so. It was completed in 1801 and didn't recieve it's popular nickname until 1832.

I really love this piece of music, but (yes, there's a but) it's so hard to play on the piano!

Set aside the fact that it's really slow and I don't like to play slowly. I just don't have a large enough hand to stretch a couple notes beyond an octave! It's not my fault...

I still want to play it, but it just doesn't sound right. And my hands hurt from stretching them at least an octave without rest for 3 minutes.

Other than that, it's a really beutiful piece of music.

I wonder if some composers have their little routine to compose a new melody. Now that I think about it, composing music is tedious work. You (most likely, I really don't know how true this is) have to hear something in your head, then figure out the notes to it on the piano or whatever instrument you're composing for, then write it all down. And then do the same thing again. And again. And again. And again. Until you're done.(I just realized I could have used copy-paste. Oh well. I am a blonde...)

And then you have to hope that someone likes it enough to play it in some concert hall so you can get some money and hope your hours and hours of work weren't for nothing.