“CulÂture has come to prize this qualÂiÂty in creÂative work: the abilÂiÂty to grab peoÂple quickÂly,” and “above pretÂty much anyÂthing else” at that. So says Evan Puschak, who should know: as the NerdÂwriter, he runs a popÂuÂlar eponyÂmous chanÂnel on Youtube, where everyÂthing depends on getÂting and holdÂing the viewÂer’s increasÂingÂly fleetÂing attenÂtion. Even under such presÂsures, Puschak has manÂaged to mainÂtain one of the most thoughtÂful culÂturÂal chanÂnels around, preÂviÂousÂly feaÂtured here on Open CulÂture for its video essays on everyÂthing from the films of Jean-Luc Godard to the paintÂings of Edward HopÂper to the music of FleetÂwood Mac.
But it is FriÂda Kahlo whom the NerdÂwriter credÂits as a masÂter manipÂuÂlaÂtor of audiÂence attenÂtion. “Yes, there’s a senÂsaÂtionÂalÂisÂtic obsesÂsion with the draÂma of her life, but that wouldÂn’t arouse nearÂly as much interÂest if it weren’t for the draÂma of her art — which is also senÂsaÂtionÂal, but in the good way.”
The senÂsaÂtionÂalÂisÂtic qualÂiÂty of Kahlo’s paintÂings owes to the “intiÂmaÂcy of the images” they depict, espeÂcialÂly when they comÂmuÂniÂcate “her vulÂnerÂaÂbilÂiÂty, her physÂiÂcal and emoÂtionÂal pain, but also her defiÂance and self-conÂfiÂdence, and the pride she so clearÂly has in her culÂture.” This comes through with speÂcial clarÂiÂty in the self-porÂtraits she creÂatÂed quite proÂlifÂiÂcalÂly, and in so doing defined herÂself as well as the new 20th-cenÂtuÂry MexÂiÂcan culÂture with which she came of age.
“I realÂly, realÂly hesÂiÂtate to bring up the word selfÂie,” says Puschak, but “insoÂmuch as her self-porÂtraits are always simulÂtaÂneÂousÂly a recordÂing and a perÂforÂmance of idenÂtiÂty, they’re bound to be relatÂable to modÂern audiÂences.” In the first half of the 20th cenÂtuÂry durÂing which Kahlo lived, paintÂing was a relÂaÂtiveÂly effiÂcient way to proÂduce images of oneÂself. Today, many of us do it dozens of times a day, at the touch of a butÂton, marÂshalÂing few artisÂtic resources in the process. But if selfÂies lack the impact of Kahlo’s self-porÂtraits, it may owe to the ironÂic reaÂson that the selfÂies look too good. Kahlo’s paintÂing “has a bit of an amaÂteurÂish qualÂiÂty to it, in its flatÂtenÂing of depth and skewed perÂspecÂtives and anatoÂmy.” But she used that style on purÂpose, payÂing homage to the folk art of her homeÂland and also makÂing you feel as if “someÂone you know” paintÂed these works. Puschak, who refers to her on a first-name basis, seemÂingÂly feels that way; but then, he’s far from the only FriÂda fan to do so.
Based in Seoul, ColÂin MarÂshall writes and broadÂcasts on cities, lanÂguage, and culÂture. His projects include the SubÂstack newsletÂterBooks on Cities, the book The StateÂless City: a Walk through 21st-CenÂtuÂry Los AngeÂles and the video series The City in CinÂeÂma. FolÂlow him on TwitÂter at @colinmarshall or on FaceÂbook.
The Venus de Milo is one of art’s most wideÂly recÂogÂnized female forms.
The Mona Lisa may be the first stop on many LouÂvre visÂiÂtors’ agenÂdas, but Venus, by virtue of being unclothed, sculpÂturÂal, and promiÂnentÂly disÂplayed, lends herÂself beauÂtiÂfulÂly to all manÂner of souÂvenirs, both respectÂful and proÂfane.
Renoir is that rare bird who was imperÂviÂous to her 6’7” charms, describÂing her as the “big genÂdarme.” His own Venus, sculptÂed with the help of an assisÂtant nearÂly 100 years after the Venus de Milo joined the Louvre’s colÂlecÂtion, appears much meatiÂer throughÂout the hip and thigh region. Her celebriÂty canÂnot hold a canÂdle to that of her armÂless sisÂter.
In the Vox Almanac episode above, host Phil Edwards delves into the Venus de Milo’s appeal, takÂing a less deliriÂous approach than sculpÂtor Auguste Rodin, who rhapÂsodized:
…thou, thou art alive, and thy thoughts are the thoughts of a woman, not of some strange, supeÂriÂor being, artiÂfiÂcial and imagÂiÂnary. Thou art made of truth alone, outÂside of which there is neiÂther strength nor beauÂty. It is thy sinÂcerÂiÂty to nature which makes thee all powÂerÂful, because nature appeals to all men. Thou art the familÂiar comÂpanÂion, the woman that each believes he knows, but that no man has ever underÂstood, the wisÂest not more than the simÂple. Who underÂstands the trees? Who can comÂpreÂhend the light?
Edwards opts instead for a Sharpie and a tiny 3‑D printÂed modÂel, which he marks up like a plasÂtic surÂgeon, drawÂing viewÂers’ attenÂtion to the missÂing bits.
The arms, we know.
Also her earÂlobes, most likeÂly removed by lootÂers eager to make off with her jewÂelÂry.
One of her masÂsive marÂble feet (a man’s size 15) is missÂing.
InterÂestÂingÂly, the plinth was among the items disÂcovÂered by acciÂdent on the Greek island of Milos in 1820, along with two pilÂlars topped with busts of HerÂcules and HerÂmes, the bisectÂed Venus, and assortÂed marÂble fragÂments, includÂing — maybe — an upper arm and hand holdÂing a round object (a goldÂen apple, mayÂhaps?)
What he’s most interÂestÂed in is that plinth, which would have givÂen the lie to the long-standÂing asserÂtion that the Venus de Milo was creÂatÂed in the ClasÂsiÂcal era.
This incorÂrect desÂigÂnaÂtion made the LouÂvre’s newest resÂiÂdent a most welÂcome replaceÂment for the loot France had been comÂpelled to return to the VatÂiÂcan in the wake of Napoleon’s first abdiÂcaÂtion.
The plinth may have been “lost” under mysÂteÂriÂous cirÂcumÂstances, but its inscripÂtion was preÂserved in a sketch by A. Debay, whose father had been a stuÂdent of Jacques-Louis David, Napoleon’s now-banÂished First Painter, a Neo-ClasÂsiÂcist.
(David’s final paintÂing, Mars DisÂarmed by Venus and the Three Graces, comÂpletÂed a couÂple of years after Venus de Milo was installed in the LouÂvre, was conÂsidÂered a bust.)
Debay’s faithÂful recreÂation of the plinth’s inscripÂtion as part of his study of the Venus de Milo offers clues as to her creÂator — “ …andros son of …enides citÂiÂzen of …ioch at MeanÂder made.”
It also dates her creÂation to 150–50 BCE, corÂrobÂoÂratÂing notes French naval offiÂcer Jules d’Urville had made in Greece weeks after the disÂcovÂery.
The birth of this Venus should have been attribÂuted to the HelÂlenisÂtic, not ClasÂsiÂcal periÂod.
Had her true author been known, she likeÂly would’ve been locked away in the museum’s archive, if not sold off. HelÂlenisÂtic art had by then been denÂiÂgratÂed by RenaisÂsance scholÂars who re-conÂceived it in anti-clasÂsiÂcal terms, findÂing in its expresÂsive, experÂiÂmenÂtal form and emoÂtionÂal conÂtent a provocaÂtive realÂism that defied everyÂthing their era stood for: modÂesty, intelÂlect, and equanimity…It helped that the Venus de Milo posÂsessed sevÂerÂal clasÂsiÂcal attribÂutÂes. Her strong proÂfile, short upper lip, and smooth feaÂtures, for examÂple, were in keepÂing with ClasÂsiÂcal figÂurÂal conÂvenÂtions, as was the conÂtinÂuÂous line conÂnectÂing her nose and foreÂhead. The parÂtialÂly-draped figÂure with its attenÂuÂatÂed silÂhouÂette – which the Regency fashÂion of the day imiÂtatÂed with its empire bust-line – also recalled clasÂsiÂcal sculpÂtures of Aphrodite, and her Roman counÂterÂpart, Venus. Yet despite all these clasÂsiÂcal idenÂtiÂfiers, the Venus de Milo flauntÂed a definÂiÂtive HelÂlenisÂtic influÂence in her provocaÂtiveÂly low-slung drapÂery, high waist line, and curve-enhancÂing contrapposto—far more senÂsuÂal and exagÂgerÂatÂed than clasÂsiÂcal ideals allowed.
It took the LouÂvre over a hunÂdred years to come clean as to its star sculpture’s true proveÂnance.
What hapÂpened to the plinth remains anyÂone’s guess.
The only mysÂtery the museum’s webÂsite seems conÂcerned with is one of idenÂtiÂty — is she Aphrodite, godÂdess of beauÂty, or Poseidon’s wife, Amphitrite, the sea godÂdess worÂshipped on the island on which she was disÂcovÂered?
I had always wantÂed to see Van Gogh’s “The StarÂry Night” in perÂson and many years ago I got a chance when I visÂitÂed the MuseÂum of ModÂern Art in New York. HowÂevÂer, two dozen othÂer peoÂple, who also wantÂed that chance, were there too, and my vision of Van Gogh’s masÂterÂpiece was one behind a phaÂlanx of cell phones all tryÂing to grab a “been there, done that” pic. ForÂtuÂnateÂly, the video above from the Great Art Explained YouTube chanÂnel takes you closÂer to the paintÂing that an in-perÂson viewÂing could withÂout setÂting off an alarm. In 15 minÂutes, narrator/creator James Payne lays out the hisÂtoÂry, the creÂation, and the techÂnique of “StarÂry Night” in great detail.
Some of the key takeÂaways from the video include:
But there were many masÂterÂpieces before that, includÂing “IrisÂes,” paintÂed in the asylum’s walled garÂden before lunch one day; and many of the surÂroundÂing counÂtryÂside once docÂtors decidÂed he was safe to be let out alone.
2. The forÂmaÂtive effect of ImpresÂsionÂism and JapanÂese ukiyo‑e on his work. From MonÂet and othÂers, Van Gogh took the attenÂtion to natÂurÂal light, the visÂiÂble brushÂstrokes, and the pointilÂlist colÂorÂing that would form new colÂors in the viewer’s eye. From the JapanÂese he took bold, bright colÂors and radÂiÂcal comÂpoÂsiÂtion.
We can pinÂpoint the exact time and date of “StarÂry Night” and see what Van Gogh saw from his winÂdow (thanks to GrifÂfith Park ObserÂvaÂtoÂry). And what we learn is…the man was an artist. He colÂlaged the best bits of what he wantÂed us to see, from conÂstelÂlaÂtion and planÂets, to the vilÂlage below (takÂen from a difÂferÂent viewÂpoint), to the cypress tree, which he brought forÂward in the comÂpoÂsiÂtion. Van Gogh was takÂing a cue from Paul GauÂguin, who encourÂaged him to use his imagÂiÂnaÂtion more, and findÂing the asyÂlum led to a more active and more critÂiÂcal way of thinkÂing about paintÂing.
3. The “unapÂpreÂciÂatÂed-in-his-lifeÂtime” myth. Yes, Van Gogh died too young. But no, he wasn’t an obscure artist. As Payne sends us off, he points out that Van Gogh was very much a part of the impresÂsionÂist art scene, showed his paintÂings *and* sold them, and even had critÂics write about him. So, it might be betÂter to call him a risÂing star, snuffed out too earÂly. We can only wonÂder where he would have gone in his art, and what he would have creÂatÂed.
Ted Mills is a freeÂlance writer on the arts who curÂrentÂly hosts the Notes from the Shed podÂcast and is the proÂducÂer of KCRÂW’s CuriÂous Coast. You can also folÂlow him on TwitÂter at @tedmills, and/or watch his films here.
Although he’s dabÂbled in the abstracÂtions that once graced the covÂers of psyÂcholÂoÂgy, phiÂlosÂoÂphy, and sciÂence texts, his overÂarÂchÂing attracÂtion to the visuÂal lanÂguage of sciÂence ficÂtion and illicÂit romance speak to the preÂmiÂum he places on narÂraÂtive.
And with hunÂdreds of “mid-cenÂtuÂry mashups” to his name, he’s become quite a masÂter of bendÂing existÂing narÂraÂtives to his own purÂposÂes.
RecentÂly, Alcott turned his attenÂtion to the creÂation of the Pulp Tarot deck he is fundÂing on KickÂstarter.
A self-described “clear-eyed skepÂtic as far as paraÂnorÂmal things” go, Alcott was drawn to the “simÂplicÂiÂty and strangeÂness” of Pamela ColÂman Smith’s “bewitchÂing” Tarot imagery:
Maybe because they were simÂply the first ones I saw, I don’t know, but there is someÂthing about the narÂraÂtive thread that runs through them, the way they delinÂeate the develÂopÂment of the soul, with all the choicÂes and crises a soul encounÂters on its way to fulÂfillÂment, that realÂly struck a chord with me. You lay out enough Tarot spreads and they evenÂtuÂalÂly coaÂlesce around a handÂful of cards that realÂly seem to define you. I don’t know how it hapÂpens, but it does, every time: there are cards that come up for you so often that you think, “Yep, that’s me,” and then there are othÂers that turn up so rarely that, when they do come up, you have to look them up in the litÂtle bookÂlet because you’ve nevÂer seen them before.
One such card for Alcott is the Page of Swords. In the earÂly 90s, curiÂous to know what the Tarot would have to say about the young woman he’d startÂed datÂing, he shufÂfled and cut his RidÂer-Waite-Smith deck “until someÂthing inside said “now” and he flipped over the Page of Swords:
I looked it up in the bookÂlet, which said that the Page of Swords was a secret-keepÂer, like a spy. I thought about that for a moment; the woman I was seeÂing was nothÂing like a spy, and had no spy-like attribÂutÂes. I shrugged and began the process again, shufÂfling and cutÂting and shufÂfling and cutÂting, until, again, someÂthing inside said “now,” and turned up the card again. It was the Page of Swords, again. My heart leaped, I put the deck back in its box and quiÂetÂly freaked out for a while. The next day, I asked the young lady if the Page of Swords meant anyÂthing to her, and she said “Oh sure, when I was a kid, that was my card.” AnyÂway, I’m now marÂried to her.
The Three of PenÂtaÂcles is anothÂer favorite, one that preÂsentÂed a parÂticÂuÂlar design chalÂlenge.
The Smith deck shows a stoneÂmaÂson, an archiÂtect and a church offiÂcial, colÂlabÂoÂratÂing on buildÂing a catheÂdral. Now, there are no catheÂdrals in the pulp world, so I had to think, well, in the pulp world, penÂtaÂcles repÂreÂsent monÂey, so the obviÂous choice would be to show three crimÂiÂnals planÂning a heist. I couldÂn’t find an image anyÂthing close to the one in my head, so I had to build it: the room, the table, the map of the bank, the plan, the peoÂple involved, and then stitch it all togethÂer in PhoÂtoÂshop so it endÂed up lookÂing like a coheÂsive illusÂtraÂtion. That was a realÂly joyÂful moment for me: there were the three conÂspirÂaÂtors, the Big Cheese, the Dame and The Goon, their roles clearÂly defined despite not seeÂing anyÂone’s face. It was a real breakÂthrough, seeÂing that I could put togethÂer a litÂtle narÂraÂtive like that.
Smith imagÂined a medieval fanÂtaÂsy world when designÂing her Tarot deck. Alcott is drawÂing on 70 years of pop-culÂture ephemera to creÂate a tribÂute to Smith’s vision that also works as a deck in their own right “with its own moral narÂraÂtive uniÂverse, based on the attiÂtudes and conÂvenÂtions of that world.”
Before draftÂing each of his 70 cards, Alcott studÂied Smith’s verÂsion, researchÂing its meanÂing and design as he conÂtemÂplates how he might transÂlate it into the pulp verÂnacÂuÂlar. He has found that some of Smith’s work was delibÂerÂateÂly exactÂing with regard to colÂor, attiÂtude, and cosÂtume, and othÂer instances where speÂcifÂic details took a back seat to mood and emoÂtionÂal impact:
Once I underÂstand what a card is about, I look through my library to find images that help get that across. It can get realÂly comÂpliÂcatÂed! A lot of times, the charÂacÂter’s body is in the right posiÂtion but their face has the wrong expresÂsion, so I have to find a face that fits what the card is tryÂing to say. Or their physÂiÂcal attiÂtude is right, but I need them to be gripÂping or throwÂing someÂthing, so I have to find hands and arms that I can graft on, FrankenÂstein style. In some casÂes, there will be figÂures in the cards cobÂbled togethÂer from five or six difÂferÂent sources.
These cards are easÂiÂly the most comÂplex work I’ve ever done in that sense. The song pieces I do are a conÂverÂsaÂtion between the piece and the song, but these cards are a conÂverÂsaÂtion between me, Smith, the entire Tarot traÂdiÂtion, and the uniÂverse.
Some marÂble statÂues, even when stripped of their colÂor by the sands of time since the heyÂday of Greece and Rome, look pracÂtiÂcalÂly alive. But they began their “lives,” their appearÂance often makes us forÂget, as rough-hewn blocks of stone. Not that just any marÂble will do: folÂlowÂing the examÂple of MichelanÂgeÂlo, the disÂcernÂing sculpÂtor must make the jourÂney to the TusÂcan town of CarÂrara, “home of the world’s finest marÂble.” So claims the video above, a brief look at the process of HunÂgarÂiÂan sculpÂtor MárÂton VárĂł. That entire process, it appears, takes place in the open air: mostÂly in his outÂdoor stuÂdio space, but first at the CarÂrara quarÂry (see botÂtom video) where he picks just the right block from which to make his vision emerge.
Like MichelanÂgeÂlo, VárĂł has a manÂiÂfestÂly high levÂel of skill at his disÂposÂal — and unlike MichelanÂgeÂlo, a full set of modÂern powÂer tools as well. But even today, some sculpÂtors work withÂout the aid of angle cutÂters and diaÂmond-edged blades, as you can see in the video from the GetÂty above.
In it a modÂern-day sculpÂtor introÂduces traÂdiÂtionÂal tools like the point chisÂel, the tooth chisÂels, and the rasp, describÂing the difÂferÂent effects achievÂable with them by using difÂferÂent techÂniques. If you “lose your ego and just flow into the stone through your tools,” he says, “there’s no end of posÂsiÂbilÂiÂties of what you can do inside that space” — the space of limÂitÂless posÂsiÂbilÂiÂties, that is, affordÂed by a simÂple block of marÂble.
In the video above, sculpÂtor StiÂjeÂpo Gavrić furÂther demonÂstrates the propÂer use of such hand tools, painstakÂingÂly refinÂing a roughÂly human form into a lifeÂlike verÂsion of an already realÂisÂtic clay modÂel — and one that holds up quite well alongÂside the origÂiÂnal modÂel, when she shows up for a comÂparÂiÂson. The Great Big StoÂry docÂuÂmenÂtary short below takes us back to TusÂcany, and specifÂiÂcalÂly to the town of PietrasanÂta, where marÂble has been quarÂried for five cenÂturies from a mounÂtain first disÂcovÂered by MichelanÂgeÂlo.
It’s also home to hardÂworkÂing sculpÂtors well known for their abilÂiÂty to repliÂcate clasÂsic and sacred works of art. “MarÂble is my life, because in this area you feed off marÂble,” says one who’s been at such work for about 60 years. If stone gives the artist life, it does so only to the extent that he breathes life into it.
Based in Seoul, ColÂin MarÂshall writes and broadÂcasts on cities, lanÂguage, and culÂture. His projects include the SubÂstack newsletÂterBooks on Cities, the book The StateÂless City: a Walk through 21st-CenÂtuÂry Los AngeÂles and the video series The City in CinÂeÂma. FolÂlow him on TwitÂter at @colinmarshall or on FaceÂbook.
Like many schoolÂchildÂren, and, for that matÂter, Goliath, the BibÂliÂcal giant who was felled by a slingÂshot, I am a bit of a PhilisÂtine.
I admit that the first and, for a long time, priÂmaÂry thing that comÂpelled me about Michelangelo’s David ( 1501–1504) was the frankÂness with which a cerÂtain part of his anatoÂmy was disÂplayed.
Kudos to galÂlerist James Payne, creÂator and host of the video series Great Art Explained, for his nod to the rabÂble in openÂing the above episode not with a view of David’s handÂsome head or miracÂuÂlousÂly detailed hands, but rather that most famous of male memÂbers.
HavÂing gotÂten it out of the way right at the top, Payne refrains from menÂtionÂing it for nearÂly 10 minÂutes, eduÂcatÂing viewÂers instead on othÂer aspects of the statue’s anatoÂmy, includÂing the sculptor’s unusuÂal methÂods and the narÂrow, flawed, preÂviÂousÂly used block of marÂble from which this masÂterÂpiece emerged.
He also delves into the social conÂtext into which Michelangelo’s sinÂguÂlar vision was delivÂered.
FloÂrenÂtines were proud of their highÂly culÂtured milieu, but were not nearÂly as comÂfortÂable with depicÂtions of nudiÂty as the ancient Greeks and Romans.
This explains the comÂparÂaÂtive smallÂness of David’s tackÂle box. PerÂhaps Goliath might have gotÂten away with a garÂganÂtuÂan penis, but David, who vanÂquished him using intelÂliÂgence and willpowÂer rather than brute strength, was assigned a size that would conÂvey modÂesty, respectabilÂiÂty, and self-conÂtrol.
The Bible idenÂtiÂfies David as an an Israelite, but MichelanÂgeÂlo decidÂed that this parÂticÂuÂlar Jew should remain uncirÂcumÂcised, in keepÂing with GreÂco-Roman aesÂthetÂics. It was a look ChrisÂtÂian FloÂrence could get behind, though they also forged 28 copÂper leaves to conÂceal David’s conÂtroÂverÂsial manÂhood.
(This theme returns throughÂout hisÂtoÂry — the 1860s saw him outÂfitÂted with a temÂpoÂrary fig leaf.)
One wonÂders how much smallÂer things would have appeared from the ground, were David installed atop the DuoÂmo, as origÂiÂnalÂly planned. MichelanÂgeÂlo designed his creÂation with this perÂspecÂtive in mind, delibÂerÂateÂly equipÂping him with largÂer than usuÂal hands and head.
One of Payne’s viewÂers points out that David’s face, which conÂveys both resolve and fear as he conÂsidÂers his upcomÂing conÂfrontaÂtion with Goliath, seems utterÂly conÂfiÂdent when viewed from below.
GivÂen that David is 17’ tall, that’s the vanÂtage point from which most of his in-perÂson admirÂers expeÂriÂence him. 16th-cenÂtuÂry Civic leadÂers, capÂtiÂvatÂed by David’s perÂfecÂtion, placed him not atop the FloÂrenÂtine CatheÂdral, but rather in PiazÂza delÂla SigÂnoÂria, the politÂiÂcal heart of FloÂrence, where a repliÂca still faces south toward Rome. (The origÂiÂnal was reloÂcatÂed to the GalÂleÂria dell’Accademia in 1873, to proÂtect it from the eleÂments.)
Payne points out that David has surÂvived many sociÂetal shifts throughÂout his 600+ years of exisÂtence. Fig-leafed or not, he is a perÂpetÂuÂal emblem of the underÂdog, the deterÂmined guy armed with only a slingÂshot, and is thus unlikeÂly to be topÂpled by hisÂtoÂry or human pasÂsions.
Most of us know RemÂbrandt’s masÂterÂpiece by the name The Night Watch, but it has a longer origÂiÂnal title: MiliÂtia ComÂpaÂny of DisÂtrict II under the ComÂmand of CapÂtain Frans BanÂninck Cocq. By the same token, the verÂsion of the paintÂing we’ve all seen — whatÂevÂer we hapÂpen to call it — is smallÂer than the one RemÂbrandt origÂiÂnalÂly paintÂed in 1642. “In 1715, the monÂuÂmenÂtal canÂvas was cut down on all four sides to fit onto a wall between two doors in Amsterdam’s Town Hall,” writes The New York Times’ Nina SieÂgal. “The snipped pieces were lost. Since the 19th cenÂtuÂry, the trimmed paintÂing has been housed in the RijksmuÂseÂum, where it is disÂplayed as the museum’s cenÂterÂpiece, at the focal point of its Gallery of HonÂor.”
That phase required high imagÂing techÂnolÂoÂgy, to be sure, but it may appear downÂright conÂvenÂtionÂal comÂpared to the just-unveiled recreÂation of the work’s three-cenÂturies-missÂing pieces, which will hang on all four sides of the origÂiÂnal at the RijksmuÂseÂum for the next three months. This makÂing-whole wouldÂn’t have been posÂsiÂble withÂout a small copy made in the 17th cenÂtuÂry — or the latÂest artiÂfiÂcial-intelÂliÂgence techÂnolÂoÂgy of the 21st.
Image courÂtesy of the RijksmuÂseÂum
“Rather than hirÂing a painter to reconÂstruct the missÂing pieces, the museum’s senior sciÂenÂtist, Robert ErdÂmann, trained a comÂputÂer to recreÂate them pixÂel by pixÂel in Rembrandt’s style,” writes SieÂgal. ErdÂmann used “a relÂaÂtiveÂly new techÂnolÂoÂgy known as conÂvoÂluÂtionÂal neurÂal netÂworks, a class of artiÂfiÂcial-intelÂliÂgence algoÂrithms designed to help comÂputÂers make sense of images.” The process, explained in more detail by ShanÂti Escalante-De MatÂtei at ARTÂNews, involved digÂiÂtalÂly “splitÂting up the paintÂing into thouÂsands of tiles and placÂing matchÂing tiles from both the origÂiÂnal and the copy side-by-side,” trainÂing mulÂtiÂple neurÂal netÂworks to comÂplete the paintÂing in a style as close as posÂsiÂble to RemÂbrandt’s rather than the copyÂist’s. The result, with a few new faces as well as a starÂtlingÂly difÂferÂent comÂpoÂsiÂtionÂal feel than the Night Watch we’ve all seen, would no doubt please CapÂtain BanÂninck Cocq and his miliÂtiÂaÂmen: this, after all, is the porÂtrait they paid for.
Based in Seoul, ColÂin MarÂshall writes and broadÂcasts on cities, lanÂguage, and culÂture. His projects include the SubÂstack newsletÂterBooks on Cities, the book The StateÂless City: a Walk through 21st-CenÂtuÂry Los AngeÂles and the video series The City in CinÂeÂma. FolÂlow him on TwitÂter at @colinmarshall or on FaceÂbook.
The tarot goes back to Italy of the late MidÂdle Ages. Every day here in the 21st cenÂtuÂry, I see undeÂniÂable signs of its culÂturÂal and temÂpoÂral tranÂscenÂdence: specifÂiÂcalÂly, the tarot shops doing busiÂness here and there along the streets of Seoul, where I live. The tarot began as a deck for play, but these aren’t dealÂers in card-gamÂing supÂplies; rather, their proÂpriÂetors use tarot decks to proÂvide cusÂtomers sugÂgesÂtions about their desÂtiny and advice on what to do in the future. Over the past five or six cenÂturies, the purÂpose of the tarot many have changed, but its origÂiÂnal artisÂtic senÂsiÂbilÂiÂty — draÂmatÂic, symÂbol-laden, and highÂly subÂject to counÂterÂinÂtuÂitive interÂpreÂtaÂtion — has remained intact.
You can get an idea of that origÂiÂnal artisÂtic senÂsiÂbilÂiÂty by takÂing a look at the the Sola-BusÂca, the oldÂest known comÂplete deck of tarot cards. DatÂing from the 1490s, it holds obviÂous hisÂtorÂiÂcal interÂest, but it’s hardÂly the only tarot deck we’ve feaÂtured here on Open CulÂture.
Artists of subÂseÂquent eras, up to and includÂing our own, have creÂatÂed speÂcial decks in accorÂdance with their disÂtincÂtive visions. The unstopÂpable surÂreÂalÂist SalÂvador DalĂ designed his own, a project embarked upon at the behest of James Bond film proÂducÂer Albert BrocÂcoli. LatÂer, the masÂter of bioÂmechÂanism H.R. Giger received a tarot comÂmisÂsion as well; though his deck uses preÂviÂousÂly unpubÂlished rather than cusÂtom-made art, it all looks surÂprisÂingÂly, someÂtimes chillÂingÂly fitÂting.
The world’s most popÂuÂlar tarot deck was designed not by a famous artist, but by an illusÂtraÂtor named Pamela ColeÂman-Smith. Many more have used and appreÂciÂatÂed her work than even, say, the Thoth deck, designed by no less renowned an occultist than AleisÂter CrowÂley, “the wickedest man in the world.” If you won’t take his word for it, perÂhaps the founder of anaÂlytÂiÂcal psyÂcholÂoÂgy can sell you on the merÂits of tarot: for Carl Jung, the deck held out the posÂsiÂbilÂiÂty of the “intuÂitive method” he sought for “underÂstandÂing the flow of life, posÂsiÂbly even preÂdictÂing future events, at all events lendÂing itself to the readÂing of the conÂdiÂtions of the present moment.” (See his deck here.) Even if you’re not in search of such a method, few othÂer artiÂfacts weave togethÂer so many threads of art, phiÂlosÂoÂphy, hisÂtoÂry, and symÂbolÂism. Of course, no few modÂern enthuÂsiÂasts find in it the same appeal as did those earÂly tarot playÂers of the 15th cenÂtuÂry: it’s fun.
Based in Seoul, ColÂin MarÂshall writes and broadÂcasts on cities, lanÂguage, and culÂture. His projects include the SubÂstack newsletÂterBooks on Cities, the book The StateÂless City: a Walk through 21st-CenÂtuÂry Los AngeÂles and the video series The City in CinÂeÂma. FolÂlow him on TwitÂter at @colinmarshall or on FaceÂbook.
We're hoping to rely on loyal readers, rather than erratic ads. Please click the Donate button and support Open Culture. You can use Paypal, Venmo, Patreon, even Crypto! We thank you!
Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.