Art History M(art)ch Madness: Final Four

Tags

,

Here it is, the penultimate round of M(art)ch Madness. The field of 64 has been whittled down to the Final Four. Surprisingly, it’s four Italian artists, and all from the Renaissance or Baroque brackets. Such is the power of bloc voting! Only one No. 1 seed – Michelangelo – remains, while No. 4 Bernini is the lowest remaining seed. Here is the full bracket and here are some FAQs about what this is all about.

No. 2 Leonardo da Vinci vs.

Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Virgin_of_the_Rocks_London_01

No. 4 Gianlorenzo Bernini

tumblr_mdr9nmDGTN1rk3hpbo1_1280

 

No. 1 Michelangelo vs.

Michelangelo_-_Cristo_Juiz

No. 2 Caravaggio

Caravaggio_Judith_Beheading_Holofernes

 

Art History M(art)ch Madness: Elite Eight results

Tags

,

It’s an all-Italian Final Four as No. 2 Leonardo beat top-seed Rembrandt with just 52 percent of the vote (or a mere two votes).  In the other three regionals, the higher seeds advanced, with No. 1 Michelangelo beating No. 6 Van Gogh, No. 2 Caravaggio beating No. 8 Vermeer in another close match and No. 4 Bernini holding off No. 6 Goya. The bracket with voting percentages is here.  In the semi finals, Michelangelo faces Caravaggio while Leonardo takes on Bernini. If the seeds hold, we’re looking at an all-Renaissance final. Can a Baroque artist make it to the last game? We’ll see. Voting starts tomorrow.

In honor of the departed, here is the Rembrandt I never got to use:

The_Nightwatch_by_Rembrandt

Year of Fiction: The Caves of Steel, by Isaac Asimov (1954)

Tags

,

 

tumblr_m97ij7i4h61rr9bzgo1_1280

We interrupt M(art)ch Madness to bring you this discussion of a science fiction classic.

I picked up The Caves of Steel for free, I think, at a fair at my son’s school. My expectations weren’t high – not due to the price – but because I’ve struggled to enjoy Asimov’s novels. Asimov is one of the Big Three of mid-century U.S. science fiction writers, with Robert Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke, and while I’ve read and enjoyed many of Heinlein and Clarke’s novels, Asimov eluded me.  As a young teenager I loved his short stories like “I, Robot” and “The Bicentennial man” but when I tried to read the Foundation Trilogy, I foundered. Too abstract, too complicated. I picked up Foundation again a few years ago as an adult, and I again lost interest. The problem, I realized, might have to do with how he wrote it, as a series of short stories that spanned thousands of years, and which therefore lacked a protagonist or organizing narrative to propel the action. When it comes it science fiction, at least, my tastes seem to be pretty meat-and-potatoes.

From that standpoint, then, the Caves of Steel was much more to my liking. It’s a murder mystery, told as a police procedural, set in a grim, future New York. The story centers around Elijah Baley, a haggard detective assigned a robot partner to solve the murder of a prominent robot scientist. While the mystery takes its twists and turns – some predictable, some not –  the book draws its energy from the tension between Lije, who resents robots and the threat they pose to earth’s workers, and Daneel, his robot partner. Asimov’s New York is a crowded, suffocating fortress, sealed from the elements, a cave of steel.  The economy is centrally planned, meals are eaten in mass “kitchens” and even toilets and bathrooms are shared expect for the lucky few with high enough status to win perks. Given its publication date, it’s hard not to read it as an anti-communist tract, but the critique is more subtle than that. Asimov’s New Yorkers lead proud, hardscrabble lives and disdain the aloof “spacers,” space colonist who left Earth generations ago and who have returned to share the benefits of their civilization in a manner that suggests the worse of noblesse oblige. It is the spacers who have brought robots to earth, and whose introduction threaten the advancement of workers desperate to improve their classification.

Through Lije, and his grudging acceptance of Daneel, our perspective and sympathies shift, and the spacers’s goals become less threatening and it’s the New Yorkers, clinging to their cramped, stratified way of life,  who become less sympathetic. The murder mystery then becomes a vehicle for a more complex story about free will and destiny. Along the way, Asimov wanders in and out of the Bible, and uses the literal intelligence of the robot as a foil for questions about mercy and justice.

There are flaws, of course, and the Caves of Steel can feel a bit dated. The writing is overwrought, and Asimov could have removed about half his adverbs to positive effect. It also has the sexism that seems endemic to the genre of that era, and the one female character, Lije’s wife, Jessie, is almost always in hysterics. Still, the pacing is brisk, the suspense genuine and the interplay between the Lije and Daneel feels like the template for all the ’80s cop buddy to come.

Books completed this year:

1, The Man in the High Castle (Dick)
2, Disgrace (Coetzee)
3, The Finkler Question (Jacobson)
4, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Heinlein)
5, Beautiful Ruins (Walter)
6 Petropolis (Ulinich)
7, The Caves of Steel (Asimov)

Art History M(art)ch Madness: Elite Eight

Tags

,

Welcome to the Elite Eight round of M(art)ch Madness, where we cut the field down to the Final Four. To recap, we started with 64 artists, seeded 1 through 16 in four historical eras. We matched ’em up, NCAA-basketball style, and you voted on who should advance. With only eight teams left, the voting is quicker, but the choices are harder. You can see the full 64 team bracket here. If you’re wondering the hell this is all about, check out these FAQs

Florence Regional

No. 1 Michelangelo vs.

240px-Dying_slave_Louvre_MR_1590

No. 6 Vincent Van Gogh

Starry_Night_Over_the_Rhone

 

 

Amsterdam Regional

No. 1 Rembrandt Van Rijn vs.

790px-Rembrandt_van_Rijn_-_Self-Portrait_-_Google_Art_Project

No. 2 Leonardo Da Vinci

Mona_Lisa,_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched


Paris Regional

No. 2 Caravaggio vs.

Caravaggio_-_San_Gerolamo

No. 8 Johannes Vermeer

535px-Johannes_Vermeer_-_Het_melkmeisje_-_Google_Art_Project

 

New York Regional

No. 4 Gianlorenzo Bernini vs.

17 bernini ludovica

No. 6 Francisco Goya

Francisco_de_Goya,_Saturno_devorando_a_su_hijo_(1819-1823)_crop

Art History M(art)ch Madness: Sweet 16 Results

Tags

,

The results are in for the Sweet 16 round, and it was a good weekend to be Baroque. Artists from the Baroque and 18th century bracket won all but one of their match ups, and make up five of the Elite Eight. The one exception was the seemingly unstoppable Michelangelo, who blew past Rubens with 78 percent of the vote. Elsewhere, though, it was Baroque/18th C. artists pulling upsets, with No. 6 Goya toppling No. 1 seed Picasso, No. 8 Vermeer beating No. 3 Matisse and No. 4 Bernini knocking off No. 2 Cezanne. No. 1 seed Rembrandt also advanced, as did Leonardo and Van Gogh.

After three rounds, the Final Four is taking shape. The winner of Michelangelo/Van Gogh will play the winner of Caravaggio/Vermeer while the winner of Rembrandt/Leonardo plays the winner of Bernini/Goya. An all-Renaissance or all-Baroque final is a distinct possibility. The updated bracket is here and Ellite Eight voting will start later today.

Art History M(art)ch Madness: Sweet 16

Tags

,

Welcome to the third round of voting in M(art)ch Madness, where we’ll cut the field from 16 to eight! Some big names – Manet, Pollock and Raphael among them – have already been voted out as we went from 64 to 16. The complete bracket with all the voting results is here.  The format is the same: cast your vote using any criteria you want. Voting will close Monday.

Florence Regional

1, Michelangelo vs.

Dividing_water_from_Heaven

No. 5 Peter Paul Rubens

diana-returning-from-hunt

6, Vincent Van Gogh vs.

Vincent_van_Gogh_(1853-1890)_-_Wheat_Field_with_Crows_(1890)

7, Hieronymous Bosch

Last_Judgement

Amsterdam Regional

No. 1 Rembrandt vs.

The_Anatomy_Lesson

No. 4 Claude Monet

Claude_Monet._Haystack._End_of_the_Summer._Morning._1891._Oil_on_canvas._Louvre,_Paris,_France

No. 2 Leonardo da Vinci vs.

800px-Leonardo_Da_Vinci_-_Annunciazione

No. 3 Jean-Jacques David

Jacques-Louis_David_008

Paris Regional

No. 2 Caravaggio vs.

Caravaggio_(Michelangelo_Merisi)_-_The_Cardsharps_-_Google_Art_Project

No. 4 Albrect Durer

Albrecht_Dürer,_Adam_and_Eve,_1504,_Engraving

No. 3 Henri Matisse vs.

Matisse_-_Green_Line.jpeg

No. 8 Johannes Vermeer

url

New York Regional

No. 1 Pablo Picasso vs.

picasso the source

No. 6 Francisco Goya

Francisco_de_Goya_y_Lucientes_-_The_Clothed_Maja_(La_Maja_Vestida)_-_WGA10045

No. 2 Paul Cezanne vs.

cezanne.bather

No. 4 Gian Lorenzo Bernini

Giovanni_Lorenzo_Bernini-Neptune_and_Triton-Victoria_and_Albert_Museum

 

Art History M(art)ch Madness Second Round results

Voting in the M(art)ch Madness second round has concluded, and you’ve decided the Sweet 16. The full bracket, with all the voting percentages, is here.

The biggest upset came in the Paris regional, where No. 8 seed Vermeer beat No. 1 Manet handily, with 60 percent of the votes. The other three top seeds in the Paris regional – Caravaggio, Matisse and Durer –  all advanced. The other big upsets came in the Florence regional, where No. 7 seed Bosch topped No. 2 Pollock and No. 6 Van Gogh squeaked past No. 3 Velasquez (who mounted a furious comeback fueled by desperate fans of the Baroque giant). That sets up a showdown between the two Dutch artists for the right to face No. 1 seed Michelangelo, who crushed No. 8 Rauschenberg with 83 percent of the vote, the biggest margin of victory in the found of 32. With two big wins, Michalengelo has to be the favorite to win it all.

In the Amsterdam and New York regionals, the top seeds all advanced with the exception of No. 3 Raphael, who was beat decisively by No. 6 Goya, who won 73 percent of the vote, the most in the New York regional. Goya’s run may come to an end in the next round, though, when he faces No. 1 Picasso. In the Amsterdam regional, No. 1 Rembrandt and No. 2 Leonardo appear to be a on a collision course.

Sweet 16 voting will start later today.

Art History M(art)ch Madness: Second Round!

Tags

,

Welcome to the second round of M(art)ch Madness, where you decide which of history’s greatest artists advances to the Sweet 16, and who goes home. Voting will be open through noon (New York time) on Thursday. You can see the full 64-team bracket, and the first-round voting percentages, here

First round recap:
Most of the higher seeds got through – which meant the seedings were accurate (yay me) – although some just barely. Diego Rivera, a 12 seed, came two votes shy of toppling No. 4 Monet, and No. 2  Pollock just hung on against No. 15 Georges De La Tour. A pair of No. 10 seeds pulled off upsets over No. 7 seeds: Jan Van Eyck handily beat Mondrian, and Courbet topped El Greco. No. 9 seed Turner also upset No. 8 Bruegel.

Florence Regional

1, Michelangelo vs.

Michelangelo's_Pieta_5450_cut_out_black

8, Robert Rauschenberg

gagosian-chelsea-robert-rauschenberg

2, Jackson Pollock vs.

No.-5-1948-by-Jackson-Pollock

7, Hieronymous Bosch

Hieronymus_Bosch_040

3, Diego Velasquez

velazquez-toilet-venus-rokeby-venus-NG2057-fm

6, Vincent Van Gogh

498px-Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Dr_Paul_Gachet_-_Google_Art_Project

4, Wassily Kandinsky vs.

kandinsky5

5, Peter Paul Rubens

prometheus-bound

Amsterdam Regional

1, Rembrandt Van Rijn vs.

Rembrandt_-_Belshazzar's_Feast_-_WGA19123

9, J.M.W. Turner

1510_10

2, Leonardo da Vinci vs.

Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_C2RMF_retouched

10, Gustave Courbet

L'Hallali_du_cerf

3, Jean Jacques David vs.

769px-Jacques-Louis_David_-_Oath_of_the_Horatii_-_Google_Art_Project

6, Mark Rothko

mark rothko no .8 1964

4, Claude Monet vs.

Monet_-_Parlament_in_London_Wolken_verhangene_Sonne

5, Marcel Duchamp

Fountain 1917, replica 1964 by Marcel Duchamp 1887-1968

Paris Regional

1, Edouard Manet vs.

Edouard_Manet_016

8, Johannes Vermeer

woman-holding-a-balance-johannes-vermeer-1664

2, Caravaggio vs.

url

10, Van Eyck

Jan_van_Eyck_076

3, Henri Matisse vs.

images

6, Sandro Botticelli

Botticelli-primavera

4, Albrecht Durer vs.

Durer_selfporitrait

5, Edgar Degas

Degas_Intérieur_Philadelphia_Museum_of_Art_1986-26-10

New York Regional

1, Pablo Picasso

653px-Family_of_Saltimbanques

8, Auguste Rodin

983_b3752094eb7f4c7

2, Paul Cezanne vs.

still-life-pitcher-and-fruit-1894

7, Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres

Jean_Auguste_Dominique_Ingres,_La_Grande_Odalisque,_1814

3, Raphael

the-sistine-madonna-1513

6, Francisco Goya

1280px-El_Tres_de_Mayo,_by_Francisco_de_Goya,_from_Prado_thin_black_margin

4, Gian Lorenzo Bernini vs.

Santa_teresa_di_bernini_03

5, Titian

Titian,_Virgin_and_Child_with_St_John_the_Baptist_and_an_Unidentified_Male_Saint,_Oil_on_canvas,_transferred_from_wood,_1517-1520.

Art History M(art)ch Madness: First Round!

Tags

, ,

All four M(art)ch Madness regionals are now open for voting. The 64 greatest artists are squaring off, NCAA-tourament style. There are close matchups in all regions, so make sure you vote before noon (New York time) on Sunday.

The regionals are FlorenceAmsterdamParis and New York

The full 64-team bracket is here

And if you’re confused about any of this, check out the FAQs

And just because, here’s a portrait  of three-time NCAA basketball champion Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, by Andy Warhol:

athlete_series_05

(Sadly, Andy didn’t didn’t make the field of 64. Maybe next year!)

Art History M(art)ch Madness: Frequently Asked Questions

Tags

,

What’s the point?

Mostly, to have fun. But also to see what happens when you cross the world of sports with the world of art. I’m a fan of both, and it seemed interesting to apply the rigid rules of the NCAA college basketball tournament to the much more nebulous world of art history.

I don’t know anything about art. Can I play?

Of course. I’ve tried to provide a representative sample of each artists work – just vote for what you like. And you probably know more about art than about college basketball, anyway.

What’s the format?

I tried to mirror the classic NCAA men’s basketball tournament structure as closely as feasible. So: 64 artists broken down into four historic brackets, and seeded 1 through 16. In the first round,  the No. 1 seed plays No. 16, No. 2 plays No. 15 etc. In the second round, the winner of 1 vs. 16 plays the winner of the 8 vs. 9 and so on. I mixed the brackets so in the first round (and most likely the second round) the artists will face off against someone outside their historic era. The full 64-artist bracket is here

How did you seed the artists?

I wrote a bit about that here. Essentially, I tried to come up with what would be the consensus choices, based on fame, skill and significance. If you polled 100 art historians about the top 16 in each bracket, hopefully the result would be something similar.

Why did you choose those historic eras?

I could only have four, based on the NCAA structure, so they needed to be broad to include as many artists as possible. And I needed to have 16 artists that are widely recognizable in each, which eliminated ancient and non-Western art. 1400 seemed like a reasonable starting point. I ended it with pop art, because it was too hard to decide which artists after that would be in the canon.

That said, the choice of historic eras is a bit arbitrary and I could have broken them down into four other categories. Painters, sculptors, architects and photographers, perhaps. Maybe next year.

How come you put (artist X) in (bracket Y)?

Some just didn’t fit neatly, like Goya. Choices were made. Unfortunately, some artists probably fell through the cracks, like Klimt.

How come (my favorite artist) isn’t in the tournament? 

Again, choices were made and limiting it to 16 artists in each bracket resulted in some tough calls. I left out a lot of my personal favorites. If you think someone got screwed, ask yourself who you would take out?

What happens next?

After the close of the first round on Sunday, I’ll post the second round of 32 artists on Monday. Then we’ll reduce the field to the Sweet 16, Elite Eight, and Final Four before choosing the champion in the first week of April. Stay tuned!