Madonna with Child; A Contemporary View of its Renaissance Form.

*to be titled at a later date*  C.T. Rasmuss, Marker layout for Lucid Mosaic (Dec. 2014).

Lately I've been studying the Renaissance, the most I have since my courses in art school; this is all due to coming across and watching: 'A History of European Art', lecture on DVD(The Great Courses) by Professor William Kloss.  

link to site for lecture on DVD by Prof. William Kloss 

I've provided you with a link to it, as a resource which I keep renewing mine at the local library, from this course midway through the 48(30 min.) lectures, I've been inspired to finally attempt my rendition of Georges Rouault's, Madonna with Child(painted in 1920,but of a of a different name), which I saw and sketched quickly at the Dayton Art Institute, shown below:

Sketch of Rouault's Our Lady of the Fields C.T. Rasmuss

Even before visiting "The Dayton" my 1st time, I'd already been influenced and mesmerized by Rouault's stained glass quality to his oil work(as he served as a stained glass apprentice in his youth), I'd also become to admire his authentic texture, and especially his subject matter(uncharacteristic of his Modernist peers art work, for the most part) along with his extreme empathy for these subjects, almost to realized ecstasy.

Notre Dame des Champs NO. 4  Georges Rouault, oil (1920).

As you can see, I got the gist of Rouault's "Masterpiece", and last week when the spark hit me, I got the urge and grabbed the pre-fabricated canvas, and started drawing; from the very day I first saw, realized and sketched Rouault's "Madonna", I knew it was going to be one of my Lucid Mosaics, but I just didn't know when.  To be even more specific, it was going to and still is going to be my first Lucid Mosaic involving a composition, that deals with a portrait setting:

*to be titled at a later date*  C.T. Rasmuss, drawing (Dec. 2014).

I'm not sure if this was on purpose or not, as it can take a lifetime to understand the lifetime of the great masters, so I wouldn't put it past Rouault, as it was obvious through his unique Renaissance subjects, that he must not have only studied the great painters of the period, but also their inventions and hidden ideas that they introduced and perfected.  What I'm saying here is: in coming up with my own composition based from Rouault's, nearly 100 years earlier; I've noticed and capitalized upon an important central idea, found throughout much of Renaissance art, and that is the Trinity.

Trinity diagram   C.T. Rasmuss, ink.

In comparing my painting/drawing to the Rouault's original, the above Trinity triangle that I drew, overlaps our two paintings together by its central figures: Madonna and Christ child; with the top point rotating clockwise: 1. Mary's head, 2. Christ Child's head, and 3. is where they connect(Mary and Child).  

All in all, it was an innate need for me(capturing the essence of bond between these two figures above all other aspects), I feel lucky that I was able to carry this most important aspect(representation of the Trinity composition wise) over into my own interpretation of an artist's great & successful rendering of this heavily sought narrative; also with a similar need to communicate this age old subject, I feel blessed to have the faith in being able to just go for it.  Thereby receiving the reward of understanding, to which only this event could have given me!

To be continued..

Black Lightning by C.T. Rasmuss

Black Lightening  C.T. Rasmuss (2013).

If you like the picture of mine above, I thank you, but I'm sad to say it doesn't exist anymore, but it still lives on throughout parts of my Lucid Mosaics, where it payed the ultimate price and has now disappeared into other artworks of mine.  The reason I'm presenting this to you, is for the same reason I took a picture of it in the 1st place; as I saw it as a work of art all in itself, by itself.

When it comes to other artists and my will to create a comrade-re between us artists, on similar missions, I'm all in and hold nothing back, but when it comes to this particular process of my own design(and of course the blessings of a higher design), I believe that I must keep some things to myself.  

My Exhibit at Broadhope Art Collective over the weekend  C.T. Rasmuss (Dec.19th 2014).

So anyway, I was talking to another artist yesterday by the name of Michelle Gravett, and she had mentioned some particular textures that I incorporated in my 'Provincial Orchard', specifically(shown: far, lower right) and because we have different perspectives of my work; me being the artist, and her being an observer, via our conversation I better understood how my "tiles" look to everyone else, and why I now wish to share one of my favorite whatchamacallits:)

She said: "the sky looked like stone", and we analyzed it a bit(so to speak), and is why I had to share it with you, whether an artist, an admirer or just someone curious about art; what I like about my favorite "whatchamacallit", is it's resemblance to Lightning, the natural aspect within a man made process by yours truly, and as we can only emulate life I say: "the truer the better", in this case for sure.

White Canvas, Frames on a Wall, and a Palette Caught in the Act.

Palette Caught in the Act  C.t. Rasmuss, photograph with i-phone (Dec. 2014).

Last week, I was in the middle of painting some frames for an upcoming art exhibit of mine, which is now, this Friday; and as I was doing something with one of the more unfinished ones, I briefly glanced back over my shoulder, and this is sort of what I saw.  I didn't do anything to it(touch it or anything), I just left it as it was, and having the need to make this perception permanent, I did what any good photographer would do, I got my camera phone and took the shot.

And now I'm so glad I that I did!  I posted this photo on Facebook soon afterwards, and to a bigger reaction than anticipated, it got many likes, a share, and some commentary; so to sum it up: this photo was effective in making a point, but question is: "what that point(s) does it make"?  To answer: I'm not quite sure yet, but I think it goes deeper than first anticipated.  One of those shots I guess, that only comes from a mixture of intuition and the faith to take the shot!

When I was in art school down in Tampa, Florida(USF) about 5 years ago, I remember this girl in one of my conceptual art classes; we had our biggest assignment at the end of the year and remember putting lots of time into mine, as well as most other students in the class.  The reason I remembered this girl and the only reason she stood out was cause for her art assignment she had just placed a regular frame on a wall and that was her project, many of us all just looked at each other in disproving reactions mostly; as we all felt that she was grasping at straws, as the rest of us had put real thought  into our work and most of us took it seriously.  

This also reminded me of the 1st time I'd seen the White canvases on the top floor of the MoMA, when I attended Hofstra, a few years before USF; and I can't help but think that my photo is a result of all these factors.  The two photos above are obviously pictures of frames, meant for their original purpose(top photo), and for interior design(bottom photo)and not in the name of Fine Art in my opinion.  

*

*I'm unable to cite these two works of art, as the sites I'd gotten them from, hadn't cited them either*

 *

Once in one of my sculpture classes at USF, I "accidentally" spent many hours on a White canvas of my own, which started out as a gigantic hard surface canvas for sculptural purposes, but ended up as a "White canvas" for my final critique(one in which my professor said was better than most graduate exit critiques). 'Palette Caught in the Act' raises at least two questions: "Is the White canvas, Fine Art?" and "Is a frame on a wall or around a palette, Fine Art?"; my answer to both of these is: "depends on the context they're in..".  As an example, based on my answer, the first two photos, again are not Fine art...but the second two are!  

The second grouping fits the category of Fine art because: the top photo is a frame that is deconstructed, then reconstructed into a completely different composition, where the artist seems to be trying to make an artistic statement; and the bottom photo is more obvious, as its actually in a Gallery, where it still can be disputed, but that's a different argument.  

As for my photo, I will defend my increasing like for it, by stating that: it's an original concept as far as I'm aware of, I meant to make an artistic statement by taking the photo(a composition that no longer exists within 10 minutes of "taking the shot", as the frame is now in use and the palette is back to being just a palette), which defines my statement: The Metaphysical Argument.  What that is specifically, we may never know for sure, but it's why I took the shot; our need to explore further into the void..

White Canvas 2  Robert Rauschenberg

Shown above is Rauschenberg, sitting in front of one of his White canvases, I can't recall who the 5 or 6 artists at the MoMA were, but this one was brought to my attention by my artist friend John Sousa.

Mazement: Finding the Cheese Again.

Mazement   C.t.Rasmuss, oil (2014).

I can't remember the mood I was in when I set out to paint the above oil abstract, that I finished a few weeks ago, but I can say that the drawing on the canvas about a month before and it just sat there ever since.  Since then I'd been like a deer in headlights, and every time my eyes were cast upon it, it reminded me more and more of my laziness, frustration, vexation, annoyance, or being stumped(perhaps all of them at one point) and this is all I can remember and why I chose this particular painting today.

Because this is also how I feel today, not 'Mazement' as in amazed, but just the opposite: suck in a maze, today I contemplated earlier, hear at a place I frequent for coffee and WIFI, and where I show some of my work; where I picked up four of my artworks today from November's show, as soon as I saw the two large ones leaning on one another face to face(the smaller two in the same fashion I later found), I was instantly offended, I felt immediately that the person in charge of this: 1, has no idea what they're doing and either 2 has no real regard for the art-work.

No matter the actual truth behind it, I got a feeling that my art-work(style) was probably completely misunderstood in such a place, and therefore: I drew a quick conclusion that perhaps it has no home hear or anywhere really; so now I contemplate: "Should it Matter?"(there's a good chance that I could be mis-reading the entire situation); but at least I know I could never twist my talent and make work just to sell - this is entirely out of the question to fix this problem, and as a result I'm faced head on with: the difficult choice to continue on with no promise, nor any clear direction, into the Abyss I feel...lol!

Some days this journey is "on hold", some days I jump in face first, some days it just happens natural, and some days, like over this weekend, it beat me up pretty good, so the question is: What kind of mouse will I be today in this Maze?;  I'd say the same goes for all of us, so...how bout you?..what will you get done today?  As for me, tho minimal, I've at least gotten started...gotten over that hump or around that 1st turn, and hopefully I just might find the cheese again, even if its just for today, F it!!!

Paul Signac and I, Brothers in Art.

Remake of Signac's: Pont des les Arts 1928 by C.t.Rasmuss, pencil/gouache (Nov. 2014).

I just over heard a brief conversation between an artist and the manager of a local place that holds exhibits, where I'm at for the WIFI and coffee, in order to make this post, and right as I was placing the above image: Remake of Signac's Pont de les Arts 1928, by yours truly...I heard the artist contemplating out-loud to his manager, about a current process for his new piece he's working on.  What got to me was his resolution in this conversation, this being the essence and conclusion he'd drawn from their encounter, which was: "...depends on what people want to put in their homes..".

Wow!!!  This comes as a shock to me and at the same time as a revelation: people/fellow artists, are 'we' this shallow?  To compromise everything we do, and are, what we represent, just to please others, merely for the chance they might give us a bit of cash?  If so, then what's it all for?  I mean, it embarrasses me to ever think ourselves to be in the same category as those great innovators of the Renaissance, especially those who painted without a license, risking their lives to express their freedoms and beliefs, as well as many other generations of artists, fighting a cause, big or small.  Hearing an "artist" talk the way this artist did just now, really offends me; and opens my eyes even more to a generation filled with others that feel this same way, paint this way, and base their life's work on(excuse me but) such a slutty principal!

Now don't get me wrong, if this is a hobby for you, or your painting for a loved one/friend/family member, etc. and you're keeping in mind what they'd like, etc. I respect you for it, but when money's involved; other than even perhaps a much needed commission for professionals, this doesn't include my contempt, but I would like to say even to these commercial artists and commissioned pieces: they too should have a certain freedom from outside influence, in sake of truth, over money, but that's just me(hopefully til the grave).

Thumbnail of S's: Pont des les Arts 1928 by C.t.Rasmuss, ink (Nov. 2014).

People!  I swear to you, I was here at this same place last week for the same purpose and read a coffee-table book: 'Master Drawings Rediscovered' by Ilatovskya; The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg/Abrams.  and in this book I saw many drawings and watercolors by Signac, more in one book than I'd ever seen before; I've known about his pointillism long before his drawings, which most people know him for of the former; so upon seeing this: I was inspired to finally make attempt of my own, not because it: "...depends on what people want to put in their homes.", but because, coincidentally I'd been in search of a composition by this same Master for my next Lucid Mosaic, I did it entirely for myself.

Drawing for Remake of Signac's Pont des les Arts 1928  by C.t.Rasmuss, pencil (Nov. 2014).

The Mosaic's I do are especially for me, my belief in God's gift he's revealed to me, and I believe all of this to be true because it's our collective duty to push beauty further(or point out where we fall short maybe, being the other-side of the spectrum), among others.  And if none of it ever gets it due, well then that's not my problem.  "I tried my best", which is what I hope I can restfully say someday, old and gray.

So the compositional source I used for my Remake by Signac, had a bridge, something I hope someday to incorporate into one of my mosaics, as they evolve in complexity; for now it's just nice having an excuse to paint a bridge anyway, the bonus here is using my innate gouache style, which you'll see is why I feel such a strong attraction to Signac's drawings.

Palette in the Dessert  C.t.Rasmuss, ink/gouache (2010).

The above painting is a landscape straight from my imagination, and done before ever seeing Signac's unique style in watercolor/gouache, making us brothers in art some how:) 

Bank of the Seine Near the Point des Arts with a View of The Louvre  Paul Signac, pencil/watercolor/gouache.

Pont des les Arts  Paul Signac, oil (1928).

The 1st of these two paintings by Signac, is one of the drawings from the book I mentioned, and the second is the oil painting that I drew the actual remake from; this oil of his seems to me more of an example of: Post-Impressionism than his Pointillism, which he famously helped develop after the death of his mentor, Georges Seraut.

>Follow this link to view more drawings by Paul Signac<