#IBmakingart
I AM NOT A GOOD ARTIST PLEASE DON'T MAKE FUN OF ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MY DRAWING
ACTUAL DRAWING
Artist: Peter Binoit
Title: Still Life with Letter Pastries
Date: 1615
Period/Culture/Context: This was painted in the 17th century, where still life paintings were very popular works of art. Binoit was a still-life painter during the Baroque era (period of artistic style that included motion). He was a German painter that worked on Frankfut am Main and Cologne; meaning he was a famous painter.
Subject/Iconography: In the painting, a meal is shown with loaves of bread, olives, a type of meat, and what looks like white wine. The still life is normal and insignificant based on the time period. Most artists would set up food or a person, and paint what they see, giving as most detail as possible. When someone requested a still portrait, that usually meant they were of a higher status or were more wealthy than others. A still life with just food as the subject, was usually done to then sell to numerous people. The paintings weren't as personal as the ones with people as the subject of the painting.
Style/Technique: The does a good job of painting what the objects in the painting actually look like. He shades well, and focuses on realism, making the painting even more realistic. The colors on the left are a bit darker than the ones on the right. This could show that the light that is on the food subject is coming from the right of the frame, drawing your focus to the letters and the loaf of bread in the right section of the painting. There is also a fly on the bread in the middle of the painting. This draws the viewer's eye into the painting, without looking deeply. In the painting, there is also an obvious background, middle, and foreground. This is a typical way to paint anything, but especially a still life. The composition of the painting seems scattered, but everything has its own place. No object in a still life picture is placed randomly, because the artist consciously places everything. Finally, since this is a digital version of the picture, texture is hard to determine. However, if I were to guess what it would appear like in person, I would have to say that it is a rough painting with good quality paint (that helps when selling the painting). All of these techniques are to in turn sell the painting for money or other treasures during the time period.
Significance/Function/Purpose: At first glance, the picture doesn't show much value other than a look into typical still life paintings, but when analyzed deeper, value is discovered. The pastries on the right had significance in the 1600s. Bakers (mostly girls) would bake them and spell out words and even phrases to practice learning how to read and write. This was important to them during this time period because education wasn't required, but most still wanted to be educated. The food itself pictured in the painting have religious value. Wine and bread are significant in the Bible because it symbolizes Jesus' body and blood. During a religious communion, one would drink wine and eat bread to become closer to Jesus and basically present their faith through the eating and drinking. A communal feast usually has wine in a chalice (like the one pictured), with loafs of bread and either olives or grapes (both are pictured). This most likely was done so that the consumer that bought the painting could hang and appreciate it in the dining room or kitchen area. The artist also had this in mind when painting the picture (all for a profit). The title of the work is Still Life with Letter Pastries; meaning that all still lifes include the rest of the painting (other than the letter pastries). The wine and bread mentioned before is very significant and almost always in the still life paintings (almost like a necessity). Still lifes are still admired today, and even taught in school, so there is still an importance to them. Still lifes, however, might have changed through out the decades and centuries to become less religious, and more focused on the talent itself.


First of all, your drawing is great! In addition, I really liked how you analyzed and described the context of the painting. At first, I was very confused and I didn't understand the purpose of the painting. However, your explanation of the significance of the painting made it more clear about what it meant. This painting definitely shows how different still life was during the 17th century compared to now.
ReplyDeleteI think your explanation of the painting's significance was fantastic. You were really able to use your knowledge of the context well and form solid conclusions based on what you saw in the picture. You also did a good job of isolating aspects of the picture and explaining their importance (especially how the artist used style and colors to convey different messages). I like your drawing as well!
ReplyDeleteLOVE that you picked this- no one else has in SEVEN years. I also think the organization you selected served you well to make you really dive in and examine each aspect (and the why) of the piece (pretty much what Danny pointed out above)
ReplyDeleteYour drawing is not bad at all. I suck at drawing so I appreciate just about anything because it is way better than what I could do. At first glance I had no clue what the painting was about or why it was significant but then I read the blog and it was clear to me. I really liked how you pointed out how the bakers (who were mainly women) chose to spell out words to learn how to read and write. I also liked how you picked out specific parts and aspects of the painting and provided meanings and their importance to the painting.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog! Your context for each section I thought was impeccable, for example how you talked about how usually the food-based still life paintings were intended to be sold, compared to the personal portraits of people. You tied such a context perfectly into purpose (to make money). Your observation of artistic elements such as the fly in the middle used to draw in the reader were insightful. Your conclusion comparing the practice of still life then to still life now was a great closing, and provided a great end to a great blog.
ReplyDeleteI liked your analysis of the significance of the painting a lot. I thought it was well done and took account a lot of different points that could not be known when you first observe the painting, and I could tell that you really observed each part of the picture and what they could possibly mean and contribute to the significance. It was like a story of having to put together each detail in order to understand the meaning and purpose and I thought it was very well done.
ReplyDeleteI loved your post! It did a great job of bringing the analysis from one that is very literal, to one that gave greater insight into painting techniques and the time period. I also really enjoyed your analysis of the title showing that the letters were not truly part of the still life aspect of the painting.
ReplyDeleteI loved your drawing, nice work!
I really liked the analysis of the painting, I think that it gave a lot of insight on how the time period can be reflected in the painting (through like the painting techniques and things like that). The analysis was also really well thought out and I could tell that you spent a great deal of time on this part. Well done!!
ReplyDeletegreat job on your analysis. You really understood the context of the time period that this piece was written in and how it came to influence the painting. I wish you wouldve discussed the painting techniques a little bit more but overall I thought you did a great job.
ReplyDelete